BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 09:53 PM

No wonder, Strick! He's probably still trying to explain Anita (was that her name?)

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 09:53 PM

An even more interesting article in Newsweek.

What the PDB Didn't Say

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Amos
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 09:44 PM

An interesting essay on Unanswered Questions about 9-11.

Regards,

A

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 09:36 PM

It's hard to say, dianavan. He certainly won't be running for national office anytime soon. I've heard that his wife really isn't into politics and she' have to be for him to be successful.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 09:29 PM

He's sensible enough to want a whole lot of power. He's been setting himself up as a hero for a very long time. We haven't seen the last of him, either. He's just waiting for the opportunity.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 09:02 PM

actually hes the only guy I could think of in this administration
with any sense.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 09:00 PM

Petr - What makes you think Powell is so good at building coalition? Powell has a long history of abusing his power.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 05:03 PM

"Actually I'd have thought that, if the American government is going to start killing people it thinks might be hostile, it should start with its own - there's a better case to be argued arguing that it has some over-riding right of life and death over its own citizens, as against the rest of us."

On reflection, maybe it's a case of no representation with out taxation?

Actually, I hope I'm wrong. It's just the way all the talk of covert actions and overt attacks (cruise missles) strikes me. Part of it is as Tenet described it earlier today where the FBI is constrained by the Constitution in domestic affairs, the CIA isn't in international affairs. Not too surprising since the same is said of MI6.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Peace
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 04:50 PM

When you sleep with the Devil, you shouldn't be surprised to have the Devil's children.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 04:38 PM

"Any suggestion that it should for some reason be less problematic killing citizens of other countries with whom the USA is not at war should be strenuously resisted."

I haven't listened to everything that's been said by the Commission, but that's the kind of thing I believe they think should have been done to prevent 9/11, kill Ben Laden and as many Al Qaeda as possible.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 04:33 PM

Actually I'd have thought that, if the American government is going to start killing people it thinks might be hostile, it should start with its own - there's a better case to be argued arguing that it has some over-riding right of life and death over its own citizens, as against the rest of us.

Any suggestion that it should for some reason be less problematic killing citizens of other countries with whom the USA is not at war should be strenuously resisted.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 04:13 PM

""I was refering to what Bob Kerrey said Bob Kerrey should have done, not what the US understood"

My bad. Bob Kerrey was speaking about what he himself in his role as a policy maker on intelligence during the Clinton administration thought was wrong. He did seem to imply that he thought it was a flaw in the entire Adminstration's view of the issue.

In the time between our posts I forgot how I phrased my first point and took your post to imply what was "understood" by the US which might have included almost anything whether it was universally understood or understood by one field agent but never brought to anyone else's attention. That doesn't change what I meant, but I can see how my confusion made it hard to follow.

As I said, I'm sure they stopped a lot of plots that they could recognized because they dealt with them before. I'm equally sure they would have been surprised by something new, as history has shown happens over and over. They didn't even remotely stop the Cole attack, for instance.

Just heard the present director of the FBI giving his testimony and it illustrates my point in a different way. He said that prior to 9/11 he had been thinking of all of this in a legal sense, the way he did when he was a prosecutor. Get enough evidence against the terrorists, get an indictment and bring them to trial. After 9/11 he thinks in terms of bringing the information to the attention of policy makers so that steps can be taken. I assumed he meant increasing the security alert for one thing, but I also assumed he meant assasinating the terrorist(s) involved if appropriate. (At least the assasination of Ben Laden's been explored by the Commission ad nauseum, so I assume that's in.) That change in attitude, the diffence in thinking before and after a major event, is what I've been talking about.

While I understand the change in attitude, I'm not sure I like it, particularly that assasination part. Who's to say who is or isn't a terrorist? Can you assasinate them even if they're in the US?

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 03:05 PM

Frankly, 9/11 is over, and no one can say definitely whether or not it could have been prevented. There seem to be equally good arguments for and against the case for prevention.

There do seem to have been some odd moves, however, and further information is always good. Tomorrow night (04/15) on an American in-depth news analysis show called "Frontline," they are presenting a program about an FBI agent named O'Neill, who was the leading expert on al Qaeda, and who was let go by the FBI apparently in the summer of 2001. It's being presented by PBS, and I am definitely going to watch it. There is a vaguely rotten smell that continues to hover around 9/11, and perhaps this programme will provide some answers.

More Details

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 02:21 PM

I remember the incident well, Teribus. He joined a few dots, fair play to him.

Would that his (and the border guard's) bosses were as job orientated.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 02:16 PM

Here we go again...

"I was refering to what Bob Kerrey said Bob Kerrey should have done, not what the US understood"

No Strick, you definately said "It's fair to say Kerrey doesn't think the US understood what kind of threat Al Qaeda was during the Clinton administration."

By reflecting on your writings in these threads, I can see why quite a lot of the verbal bumf that is coming out of the White House these days finds good homes in some peoples' consciousness.
I'm sorry to have to remark this, Strick, but between the gaps in what you are saying, you could fly a couple of aeroplanes.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 02:06 PM

Jim McCallan - 14 Apr 04 - 01:29 PM

<<"They stopped lots of stuff they knew to look for, mostly things that didn't require as much cooperation or imagination"

I don't think you can make such a generalised sweeping statement like that, Strick.
They stopped all that lot of other stuff by joining dots as well, I would imagine.>>

Hi Jim,

Do you remember the Iraqi "Super Gun" affair? Do you remeber who spotted it? And how it was spotted?

If not I'll refresh your memory.

The "Super Gun" saga was a little scheme of Saddam's to obtain a low cost way of lobbing fairly large lumps of artillery from a site in western Iraq into Israel. He hired a Canadian Gerald Bull to design and construct it. The barrel for this gun came in sections and had to be made of quite an exotic steel machined to amazingly tight tolerances. The Iraqi oil ministry ordered it as being required for oil field/oil refinery use. Churchill's the steel makers were contracted to manufacture and machine these pipes. All considered to be above board everthing appeared to be in order, nobody suspected a thing.

Being made in Sheffield the port these "pipe sections" were sent to was Immingham on the Humber. One of HM's Customs and Excise Officers at Immingham had a look at these "pipe sections" then had a good look at the accompanying paper work and blew the whistle. Pity for Saddam and his boys, if they'd sent those pipes damn near anywhere else they, more like-as-not, would have got away with it. The Custom's Officer was familiar with supplies and pipe work destined for refinery and offshore use, as around that time quite a bit of it was passing through Immingham. Purely by happen-chance, he took one look at the Iraqi consignment and recognised that whatever purpose these pipe sections were going to be used for, the oil and gas industry was not it. No alerts, no major threat warnings, no special briefings - just a guy doing his job.

That story somewhat similar to that of the US border Guard?

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 01:29 PM

"They stopped lots of stuff they knew to look for, mostly things that didn't require as much cooperation or imagination"

I don't think you can make such a generalised sweeping statement like that, Strick.
They stopped all that lot of other stuff by joining dots as well, I would imagine.

I don't doubt for one minute that Bush is doing more to get his house in order these days, than what was the case pre 9/11, but has anything really changed as far as the perceived threat is concerned? If the imagination was already there to envisage all sorts of other kinds of threats, short of getting attacked by aliens, I mean how much imagination does it take, and how much of it do we allow our leaders and their advisors to be lacking in, before we start calling them total buffoons?

'The Buck Stops Here' That's what Truman had the guts to accept as being one of the perks of his job. Encapsulated in those four words is an ready admission of the frailties of being in Government; the acknowledgement as it were, that to err is human. But whose responsibility is it ultimately?
9/11 happened on George W. Bush's watch, Strick. His subsequent crusade, so aptly called 'The War On Terror' was as naive as it's catchy title is... 'catchy', I suppose. It might be difficult for you to imagine how utterly pretentious and arrogant that kind of a declaration sounds to people who really know the futility of making such statements, but believe me, when I first heard those words uttered, I shook my head in disbelief.

Bush's crowd didn't join up the dots in the 200 odd days leading up to September 11, that much we know.
If they had a 'painting by numbers' book, would they have done any better, I wonder?

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 01:15 PM

I said this in another thread and Ill repeat it here,
you can spread the blame for not preventing 9/11, but the IRaq
venture is Bushs own idea, and plan from the start.

and yet every step of the way the Bush admin. has been wrong,
there were no wmds, they werent greeted as liberators,
remember Wolfowitz saying that SHinsekis troop estimates for holding Iraq were WILDLY inaccurate.. right.

(not enough to prevent the widespread looting and destruction following the collapse)
if they have enough troops why are they asking other countries to send in more? what does it matter what passport they have?
(in fact yesterday they announced they will be sending more)

the plan is to hand over power June 30th, and when Paul Bremer was asked the other day to whom they will hand it over? he said "Thats a good question". (bad answer as far as Im concerned)

why is it June 30th? the only reason is timing for the next US election.
and they will stay as long as necessary? it will have to be years.
its time to fire the idiot chicken hawks like Rumsfeld and WOlfowitz,
the top brass in the pentagon is hated by the uniforms anyway.
they havent a clue what to do next. ANd the problem with BUsh is that whenever theres any opposition he just digs in his heels.

after 9/11 the much of the world sided with the US, all of that goodwill has been squandered by BUSH,

the Bush administration believes the US has the power to do it alone,
yet at the same time they ask the UN and other nations to participate in reconstruction but are not willing to hand over any power.

with incredibly stupid timing they send Powell around trying to get the Europeans to forgive Iraqi debts, at the same time announcing reconstruction contracts will only go to US and (coalition of 'willing')

whoever inherits the mess in November knows the US will have to stay for a long time, and it will need to do it with the help of other nations and the UN to have any real legitimacy.

its time to build a real coalition but no one in the white House except Powell is any good at that.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 12:15 PM

"Al Qaeda was an army and should be attacked like an army, not a criminal group.

What does that actually mean?"

I'm not sure I know. I caught a few minutes of the Commission investigation on TV yesterday and apparently Kerrey was in a reflective mood because he was saying this instead of asking questions of the FBI guy before the Commission. Maybe he'll explain what he means in the report.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 12:11 PM

Al Qaeda was an army and should be attacked like an army, not a criminal group.

What does that actually mean? Whether you call it an army or a criminal group it operates in small groups, acting it would appear with a great deal of independence. If "arrmy" mesans something you can hoe to meet and defeat in battle, that is not the tight word to use for Al Qaeda.

It relies on the timeworn guerrilla principle of taking advantage of natural cover - more especially natural human cover, of not being readily distinguishable from the rest of the population. It also depends on having potentially some degreee of support from people who are open, in some degree, to being sympathetic to its aims.

A major factor in developing and holding on to that kind of sympathy, and translating it, where necessary, into active support, is the impact of overkill by its opponents on the population in which the potential sympathisers live.

I imagine that the operatives in organisations like the CIA know this kind of stuff. However, if so, they don't seem to have had much success in getting the message across to the people in charge.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 12:01 PM

"Yes, but apparently a lot of other actions against the US were prevented during this time, presumably using the same intelligence gathering/sharing systems."

Oh, agreed. They stopped lots of stuff they knew to look for, mostly things that didn't require as much cooperation or imagination. For instance, in the case of the Millenium bomb plot it only took one attentive border guard. No special intelligence work was required, just one low level civil servant being curious enough to search the guy's car. That guy deserves a promotion, a raise and a reward (though knowing my luck, the guy who replaces him at the check point won't be as curious).

Don't take this wrong, but if Ben Laden were more like "Pretty Boy" Floyd, the FBI would have caught him long ago. Ben Laden's a new thing and, regretably, large, complex institutions change slowly.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 11:56 AM

The oil based economy's not the reason that isn't happening right, now, Carol. I just don't think the underlying reasons are going to change just because we reduce our standard of living while shifting to different energy sources.

Isn't the reason what isn't happening right now? The end of terrorism? I think it's a very big part of the reason. The biggest part of it. But you're right. Our predatory capitalism isn't confined only to the petroleum part ot the economy. I would suggest that predatory capitalism, in whatever form it comes, does not help the bottom 90 percent of people. Only the top 10 percent of people benefit from this practice. The rest pay the hidden costs, and do the most suffering because of the repercussions of this way of doing things.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 11:51 AM

"An economy that is based on sustainable and ethically responsible energy, goods, and services would benefit far more people."

The oil based economy's not the reason that isn't happening right, now, Carol. I just don't think the underlying reasons are going to change just because we reduce our standard of living while shifting to different energy sources.

"You're a Christian, right? Do you think you'll go to heaven if you make decisions that result in other people losing their lives just so you can have a higher standard of living? What was it somebody said about a camel passing through the eye of a needle?"

Don't worry about me. It doesn't work like that.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: GUEST,Jim McCallan
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 11:51 AM

Yes, but apparently a lot of other actions against the US were prevented during this time, presumably using the same intelligence gathering/sharing systems.

The question then is: Who took their eye off the ball?
Which of course, would then beg the question: Why?

I think in this eon of dot joining, we should be able to join those ones.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 11:47 AM

I think you're wrong about that, Strick. It's really only a very small percentage of people who are benefitting from a petroleum dependent economy. An economy that is based on sustainable and ethically responsible energy, goods, and services would benefit far more people. It's the people in the bottom 90 percent (the ones currently with the lowest standard of living) who will benefit. You're forgetting that these are the people who are paying all of the hidden costs of the petroleum based economy. Including the hidden cost of their sons and daughters getting killed in places like Iraq.

You're a Christian, right? Do you think you'll go to heaven if you make decisions that result in other people losing their lives just so you can have a higher standard of living? What was it somebody said about a camel passing through the eye of a needle?

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 11:36 AM

"9/11 could have been prevented, Strick.
Does that not piss you off wholesale?"

I was refering to what Bob Kerrey said Bob Kerrey should have done, not what the US understood. Turns out Kerrey was involved in part of Clinton's policy efforts on this. He said that we never realized that Al Qaeda was an army and should be attacked like an army, not a criminal group. If he had it to do over again, he would treat them completely differently. If he had it to do over again...

You know, Jim, it doesn't piss me off, because I understand the dynamic. Did you know that the Union could have ended the Civil War in 6-8 months? All they had to do was promote Grant instead of McClelland to lead the Army of the Potomac and buy 200-500 Gatlin guns after the Union tested them in 1862. It's perfectly true, honest. We'd have saved what, 300,000-400,000 lives? Shouldn't I be pissed off given that would have prevented the total destruction of the South (their army would have been defeated in the field not by burning their homeland) and Lincoln would have lead the instead of Reconstruction instead of Congress? Then again, do you have any idea what it would have taken for someone with sufficient authority to recognize that and overcome all the obstacles to keep these two things from happening?

The question is not whether 9/11 could have been prevented. Hell, I could have described senarios that would have prevented it without one word from this Commission. The question is whether the senarios are realistic given the obstacles that existed in the real world, not the healthy imagination of the people looking back on the situtation.

By and large the world doesn't work the way it's supposed to. That mutiple, somewhat competing organizations siloed information and didn't connect the dots the way they should have shouldn't be a surprise. That they couldn't respond effectively to something they had never encountered before shouldn't be a surprise. It's the real world, after all.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 11:07 AM

dianavan, I understand. As a WAG, I'd say we might expect to give up one third of our current level of goods and services, and that we won't get to decide which third. It will probably include some things we really want or even need. More importantly, I have no doubt that the people hurt most by this will be the ones who can afford it least. Imagine we don't like that, but I'm also sure it's obvious.

To top it off, the cynic in me would think that any resulting "progress" in the world wouldn't go to the peoples who need it, it would go to the next two or three most agressive national powers. Ever feed ducks stale bread in at a pond? If the largest male stops eating, it isn't the smallest, weakest ducks that get the next pieces of the bread.

If you think getting the US to agree to this would be difficult, imagine what it'll be like getting everyone else on board.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: GUEST,Jim McCallan
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 11:02 AM

Strick..., I don't know if you do this deliberately or not, but let's go through it once again, shall we?

""Clinton did recognize that Al Quaeda was a new type of, and significant, threat."
Track down what Bob Kerrey said about that in the hearings today. It's fair to say Kerrey doesn't think the US understood what kind of threat Al Qaeda was during the Clinton administration."

What Bob Kerrey thought the US understood, has nothing whatsoever got to do with what Clinton recognised.
Clinton couldn't fart sideways without someone accusing him of 'dog wagging'

9/11 could have been prevented, Strick.
Does that not piss you off wholesale?

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 02:59 AM

Strick - Re your reply to Carol C: "I'm worried that a good percentage of the US population would join your life style if the changes you suggest were implemented. Many of them would not like it."

Thats the point, Strick - Many will have to make those changes so that others won't have to die just to satisfy their lifestyles or their perceived needs. Most people in this world are just trying to live (clean air, water and an adequate diet) Never mind the SUV. Whats fair is fair.

I think the U.S. is outnumbered and the world is calling for change.

Nader is the only one who seems to know this. Kerry and Bush will only maintain the status quo.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 09:27 PM

In fact, their training in matters ranging from weapons handling to multi-layered force structure suggests a level of professionalism that is likely the result of contact with a state military structure.

Hahahahaha... !!!!!!!!

No shit! That state structure would be the CIA (and whatever covert military stuff they used to train people like the Mujahideen).

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 08:51 PM

An excerpt from
Inside Al Qaeda's Training Camps
What they're ready for.

By Bryan Preston

...But what kind of training are these potential killers receiving? According to a U.S. Army assessment of its training videos, al Qaeda operatives get high quality, professional preparation to carry out a number of combat operations.

According to the Army's assessment, which I have reviewed, al Qaeda troops are well trained and can pose a serious tactical threat to American and allied forces engaging them. In fact, their training in matters ranging from weapons handling to multi-layered force structure suggests a level of professionalism that is likely the result of contact with a state military structure. When they initiate an attack, they don't go in as cowboys. Carrying their handguns in the high ready position, or their assault rifles in a disciplined, military bearing, they never handle or fire their weapons in a haphazard manner. Their strike forces divide into teams, coordinated along lines of responsibility such as assault, security and support elements. These sub-elements maintain synchronicity via handheld radios.

Most chilling of all, the tactics seen on the al Qaeda training tape match nothing seen on the battlefields of Afghanistan. It's therefore reasonable to conclude that the videotaped tactics are for some future attack. The entire tape points to such a conclusion. The ambush scenario featured six-lane highways with cloverleaf exit and entry patterns similar to those in the United States and Europe. Some of the hostage scenarios featured raids of buildings with large numbers of occupants, suggesting schools or businesses. The golf-course scenario certainly doesn't look like anything likely to be pulled off in most Middle Eastern countries.

Al Qaeda troops train via a set of combat scenes that vary in scale and intent. Scenarios seen on the tape include those described above, as well as several others that involve hostages. All hostage scenarios began with extreme violence — anyone offering resistance was shot and killed on the spot. During the siege, the terrorists play-acted dictating commands to the hostages in English, and the play-acting hostages responded in English. For these scenarios, the terrorists are trained to determine whether any law enforcement, military, security, or even armed citizens, are among the hostages. If they find such people among the prisoners, the terrorists will segregate them from the others, and will control them by threatening to harm the unarmed hostages. The end fate for such prisoners is ritual execution in front of TV cameras. In fact, all of these scenarios ended with the terrorists murdering all hostages and preparing to die in place. None of the hostage scenarios deviated from this pattern...

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 08:29 PM

I'm not aware of any evidence that the Afghan war has had any adverse effect on the ability of the Al Qaida network to recruit and train recruits, and carry out attacks. And there is very strong reason to believe that it may have had the opposite effect.

The crucial weapon involved is not technological, it is human - once you have human beings who are willing to die in the course of carrying out the instructions, the rest is just detail. Pocket knives, fertiliser, backpacks - nothing high tech needed, no complicated training.

That is why the essential thing is to avoid providing that essential key weapon, the person who is motivated to give his or her life. Everything that has been done so far could have been designed to make it easier to recruit such people, by motivating increased numbers to feel that way.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 08:01 PM

"Clinton did recognize that Al Quaeda was a new type of, and significant, threat."

Track down what Bob Kerrey said about that in the hearings today. It's fair to say Kerrey doesn't think the US understood what kind of threat Al Qaeda was during the Clinton administration.

At last count, 28 of the key players at Enron have indicted. Jeff Skilling, the lastest to be indicted, was in the news the other day when the police picked him up for acting erratically. Ken Lay's the only officer I know of that hasn't been touched yet, but it's only a matter of time. It is hard for something that happened in 2001 to remain a headline this many years later. Most of the actual crimes were committed in the late 90s after all.

Actually the other half dozen or so corporate scandals similar to Enron are more interesting than this case. Global Crossing, Worldcom, Rite Aid, Computer Associates, Dynergy, Healthsouth, Imclone, someone was asleep at the wheel when those guys were fixing their books from about 1996 on.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 07:38 PM

So, let me get this straight.

Clinton did recognize that Al Quaeda was a new type of, and significant, threat.

His response, as characterized by Rummie, and parroted by the Right, was to "lob a few cruise missles at them".

This only pissed-off Al Quaeda, he (Clinton) should have done more.

Now, please give me a reference to one (uno, ein, un, 1, I, e^-i*pi) Right winger who, at the time, said "that's good start, but we need to attack some more."

I'll give you a thousand references to those people screaming "wag the dog".

Oh Please, if Clinton had done what people are now saying he should have done, the outcry would have been even more shrill.

Don't assume I'm a Clinton fan. I just can't take the hypocrisy.

Interesting how the attack on Iraq has driven Enron, etc. off the front page. No one is screaming wag the dog about that are they?

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 04:54 PM

The SUV problem is already being addressed. There are hybrid SUVs that will be available on the market very soon. That's a very good start, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 04:47 PM

Sure, and maybe people will give up their SUVs, too. But it's a nice thought and I respect it.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 04:38 PM

It's not all that bad, actually. We're sort of enjoying the simplicity of it. I think it would not necessarily be a bad thing for other people to adopt a simpler lifestyle. In fact, I think it woud probably be a very good thing. And just think how liberating it would be for us not to have to maintain our high standard of living using blood money as the basis for it.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 04:34 PM

Sorry, Carol, wasn't trying to go there.

I'm worried that a good percentage of the US population would join your life style if the changes you suggest were implemented. Many of them would not like it.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 04:30 PM

You need to know something about my standard of living in order to understand any sort of answer I might give you. We're living in a small travel trailer in a mobile home court in rural Alabama. It costs us $100 per month to park our trailer here. Right now, I'm doing my internetting in a little metal shed that we've set up next to our trailer. We have one vehicle, which we don't use more than once or twice a week on average. All of the jobs that Rob is qualified to do seem to be bleeding over to India, and Rob is in the process of figuring out what he wants to do for a living now.

I'm working on some projects of my own, but they're not generating any income yet, so we're living on savings. There's no telling when we will have an income again. The projects I'm working on, if they do eventually generate an income, won't necessarily be dependent on the economic situation in the US. So I don't think I would agree with the idea that the changes I've suggested will necessarily have any significant impact on my standard of living.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 04:18 PM

I know next to nothing of your standard of living, Carol. Well enough to make some guesses, but that's beside the point. I didn't mean to make the question of personal. I think the changes you suggest and their consequence would help reduce the standard of living the US substantially. How much would you or anyone else be willing to give up?

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 04:06 PM

I'd endorse part of that, Carol, but not all of it. I don't think you know what you're asking in those changes to the UN, but it's not going to happen. None of the permanent members of the Security Council would let it happen; they all have too much at stake.

That's the fly in the ointment... at least for the time being. But terrorism will never go away until they do. Some day they will realize this, if everyone on earth doesn't get killed first.

Interedsting question: what percentage of your standard of living are you willing to give up to achieve this?

Interesting question indeed. What do you know about my standard of living, and on what basis do you assume I would have to give up any of it in order to achieve what I suggested?

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 03:55 PM

I'd endorse part of that, Carol, but not all of it. I don't think you know what you're asking in those changes to the UN, but it's not going to happen. None of the permanent members of the Security Council would let it happen; they all have too much at stake. Interedsting question: what percentage of your standard of living are you willing to give up to achieve this?

It would be interesting to see what would happen if the US joined the international court. After there is no statute of limitations to the kind of war crimes Bob Kerrey confessed to a few years back.

Jim, I should have answered your first question in that last post. Afghanistan? Yeah, I feel safer. Al Qaeda lost a major base of operations and isn't nearly as effective as it would have been if we hadn't gone in. They were growing faster than they are now and don't were turning out much more dangerous recruits than they are today.   I don't think I can express my feeling toward the Taliban, either. If, as some people say, the Taliban were our fault (wrong, but if), then Afghanistan as partially corrected that mistake. I

raq? No, not particularly safer, not from terrorists anyway. Saddam was never a direct threat to the US, but he was a serious threat to other countries in a strategic region of the world and an indirect threat.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 03:42 PM

What we do, Strick, is to try to insert ourselves back into an international consensus. Even if it's no more effectual than the US government has been, it will at least have some degree of legitimacy with the international community. Then, we stop meddling in the affairs of other countries. In all of the cases where the US does intervene, it's always with some sort of expectation of profit (usually for the large corporate entities that helped get those in power in the US government where they are). The US doesn't ever do things for altruistic reasons.

I would suggest that the UN should be supported wholeheartedly by the US government, and that it be restructured so that all member nations have exactly the same rights within the organization as all the rest. No more special priveleges for the more powerful countries like the US. I think that would go a long way toward addressing the underlying problems. And I also think that the US should endorse, and become a member of the international court. We need to make this country accountable for what it does. Only then can we hope to really correct the problems that produce the symptom of "terrorism". (Including the state sponsored terrorism that the US has been engaging in for most of its existance.)

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 03:13 PM

"And Afghanistan and Iraq has turned that table, has it?"

You're the one intent on blaming various administrations when their strategies don't work, not me.

Dick Clarke was right, but he prevented nothing despite the fact that the advice he gave (not what he wished he had given) was followed by both administrations.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 03:08 PM

"All the cruise missle strikes did was cause Ben Laden to be more intent on attacking the US. In effect they prompted 9/11"

And Afghanistan and Iraq has turned that table, has it?

As to what good it may have done Dick Clarke to be right, probably the satisfaction of knowing that in a way he may have played some part in preventing a catastrophe happening on American soil. Not that he might have known specifically what that catastrophe might have been, mind you; just to be resplendent in the knowledge that his President was on top of the issues in good time.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 03:03 PM

Possibly, Carol, particularly as we know it's organized now.   Assume for the moment that trying to fix the problems would only cause different ones later on. After all supporting the Mujahideen's attempts to drive the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan are part of what got us here as is the US's defense of Kuwait. Ben Laden's prime
motivation for starting all this was the presense of US troops in Saudi Arabia, sacred ground, duing the first Gulf War. By your rules, we can't use force to change their governments, anyway (I'm OK with that) Any non-military attempt at modernization or liberalizaton of governments in the region plays in to Al Qaeda's hands, too. One of their main arguments is that Westernization is diluting Islamic purity and the madrasas are turning out young men who agree with them every day.

Now what? Can't give into their demands. Remember what they want most was putting up Taliban-like states across the region, a situation worse than what we have now. As you said, you can't attack the countries that support them and UN sactions would have the same effect. What's left? Putting the West on alert permanently and violating the civil rights of everyone who is or looks Arab?

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 02:00 PM

Strick, it's about as possible to wipe out Al Qaeda as it is to wipe out all asthma. Both are symptoms of bigger problems. You can't kill the symptom in these cases. You can either try to limit them, or you can correct the problems that cause the symptoms.

In the case of Al Quaeda, the problem is caused by the way powerful countries like the US treat weaker countries like Afghanisan. Trying to "wipe out" the symptom in this case will only make it worse.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 01:46 PM

"I don't blame Clinton for not recognising the quantum leap.... for the simple reason that he did recognise the quantum leap."

OK, have it your way. Why the hell didn't Clinton do something effective about it? All the cruise missle strikes did was cause Ben Laden to be more intent on attacking the US. In effect they prompted 9/11.

Of course you can be right too early -- if no one's ready to believe what you say and you have no proof, you might as well not be right at all. Any good cop knows that. Knowing that someone is a bad guy doesn't matter if you can't do anything about it. You can only tail them so long before their lawyer shout harrassment and then you're worse off than ever.

A good example is the alert Clarke had the US go into in July of 2001. By the time the terrorists attacked in September, the edge had been taken off the alert, parts of the system were showing signs of breaking down and they were looking for the wrong thing any way. What good did it do him to be right?

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 01:46 PM

Yes Kim..., but this is about Friday evening.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Kim C
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 01:40 PM

It's easy to quarterback on Monday morning.