• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Has a Point About Bush and 9/11

notquiteright said:
Oh the BS fairly drips from your posts...

Since the Kamikazes of WWII the discussion as been ongoing. But again you point to a needle here and a needle there when the room is full of needles! Try and get that through your hack! A key 'dot' to upgrade the terrorists as pilots of suicide aircraft never made it out of an FBI field office.

Up until then truck bombs were the biggest threat as both foreign and domestic terrorists had used them. Next the overseas use of nerve agent in confined area. Then the dirty/nuke bomb as the former USSR's stockpile was neither well guarded and scientists were in poverty.

You spin miesters pretend there was no other threat, plenty of credible evidence the main threat was suicide pilots, and ignore the mountain of needles the threat analysis teams had to wade through...

Like I said, I despise BushII, but blaming him or his close team for failing to stop 9/11 is a hate too far... :peace
Click to expand...

The use of aircraft as weapons was regularly included in briefings ever since the breakup of a plot in the mid 1990's.
 
Renae said:
Jack,

Do you know how many threats and warnings go through the system on a daily basis?

Unless you're saying we need a USSR style total control Government with the FBI acting as KGB you cannot possibly stop all threats (And even THEY couldn't however...)

That's a MOST dishonest line of thinking you've embraced.
Click to expand...

Our senior counterterrorism officers were tearing their hair out trying to find a way to make the GWB crowd understand the gravity and imminence of the threat.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Hm. I wonder what conservatives would do today if they found out that the Obama administration was selling missiles to Iran (in clear violation of the arms embargo) in order to fund a secret war in a Central American nation.

Jack, it doesn't take a genius to know how the Right would react. Given their history ever since Bill Clinton got elected, it would be disingenuous to claim otherwise.
Click to expand...

So what? I could not care less.
 
Jack Hays said:
Our senior counterterrorism officers were tearing their hair out trying to find a way to make the GWB crowd understand the gravity and imminence of the threat.
Click to expand...

BULL ****. What you're hearing is AFTER THE FACT "I knew and they wouldn't LISTEN!" crap. C'Mon man, don't fall for that ****.
 
Absentglare said:
You're both conclusion seeking.

President Bush 2 took no action to secure our nation in spite of repeated and escalating warnings. Let me guess, for Benghazi you give Clinton no such similar credit "Oh they get lots of requests for more security," even though it's been well established that embassies are targets of terrorist attacks in war torn countries for decades.
Click to expand...

Your dismissive on both accounts... BushII took actions against the threats they thought were a higher priority- nerve gas and truck bombs. Intel that would have perhaps- you can never be sure- but the intel that could have started a new look at aircraft sat on an FBI field office desk. Can't blame the White House for that.

Embassies had been ramping up security for decades- the issue is the embassy can't be turned into a fortress, it isn't a military strongpoint, it's an embassy. What lead to the deaths was a CIA OP running with little security in a distant outpost from the US Embassy coupled with an Ambassador who prided himself with his closeness to the Libyans. But as Clinton said and no CON committee member disagreed- some requests for increase in security was answered- but once more for the slower folks the Embassy was never attacked- it is in Tripoli.
 
Renae said:
BULL ****. What you're hearing is AFTER THE FACT "I knew and they wouldn't LISTEN!" crap. C'Mon man, don't fall for that ****.
Click to expand...

Those involved were my friends and colleagues. Everything I have cited is based on what they said at the time, before 9/11. I know what happened.
 
notquiteright said:
Your dismissive on both accounts... BushII took actions against the threats they thought were a higher priority- nerve gas and truck bombs. Intel that would have perhaps- you can never be sure- but the intel that could have started a new look at aircraft sat on an FBI field office desk. Can't blame the White House for that.

Embassies had been ramping up security for decades- the issue is the embassy can't be turned into a fortress, it isn't a military strongpoint, it's an embassy. What lead to the deaths was a CIA OP running with little security in a distant outpost from the US Embassy coupled with an Ambassador who prided himself with his closeness to the Libyans. But as Clinton said and no CON committee member disagreed- some requests for increase in security was answered- but once more for the slower folks the Embassy was never attacked- it is in Tripoli.
Click to expand...

The GWB WH was briefed multiple times on the aircraft threat -- a known danger since 1995.

Phase III: CIA plane crash plot
Abdul Hakim Murad's confession detailed Phase III in his interrogation by the Manila police after his capture.
Phase three would have involved Murad either renting, buying, or hijacking a small airplane, preferably a Cessna. The airplane would be filled with explosives. He would then crash it into the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters in the Langley area in Fairfax County, Virginia. Murad had been trained as a pilot in North Carolina, and was slated to be a suicide pilot.
There were alternate plans to hijack a 12th commercial airliner and use that instead of the small aircraft, probably due to the Manila cell's growing frustration with explosives. Testing explosives in a house or apartment is dangerous, and it can easily give away a terrorist plot. Khalid Sheik Mohammed probably made the alternate plan.
A report from the Philippines to the United States on January 20, 1995 stated, "What the subject has in his mind is that he will board any American commercial aircraft pretending to be an ordinary passenger. Then he will hijack said aircraft, control its cockpit and dive it at the CIA headquarters."
Another plot that was considered would have involved the hijacking of more airplanes. The World Trade Center (New York City, New York), The Pentagon (Arlington, Virginia), the United States Capitol (Washington, D.C.), the White House (Washington, D.C.), the Sears Tower (Chicago, Illinois), and the U.S Bank Tower (Los Angeles, California), would have been the likely targets. Abdul Hakim Murad said that this part of the plot was dropped since the Manila cell could not recruit enough people to implement other hijackings in his confession with Filipino investigators, prior to the foiling of Operation Bojinka. This plot eventually would be the base plot for the September 11 attacks which involved hijacking commercial airliners as opposed to small aircraft loaded with explosives and crashing them into their intended targets. However, only the World Trade Center (which was destroyed) and The Pentagon (which suffered partial damage) were hit.


Bojinka plot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bojinka_plot


Wikipedia


The plot is also known as Oplan Bojinka, Operation Bojinka, Project Bojinka, and .... On January 15, 1995, a suicide bomber would dress up as a priest, while ...‎Terminology and etymology - ‎Financing - ‎Planning of Oplan Bojinka
 
JonK said:
YOU BECOME AWARE, rather than worrying about the guy who tried to kill your daddy? AND from day one trying to justify your invasion of the nation?

The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News' 60 Minutes.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,"


CNN.com - O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11 - Jan. 14, 2004
Click to expand...

so... no, you have no idea whatsoever how you, as a policymaker, would respond to vague warning? Or you do have an idea, but don't want to admit it. ?
 
Absentglare said:
I already broke this down into terms so small an 8 y/o could understand them.

The TSA changes after 9/11 could have been implemented before 9/11.
Click to expand...

Is an 8 year old capable of understanding that the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which was an act of Congress, took place after the 9/11 attacks, meaning that there was no TSA prior to 9/11?
 
cpwill said:
Is an 8 year old capable of understanding that the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which was an act of Congress, took place after the 9/11 attacks, meaning that there was no TSA prior to 9/11?
Click to expand...

Of course he is! He may also be able to understand:

cpwill said:
No, because prior to the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which was an act of Congress, and took place after the 9/11 attacks, there was no TSA.
Click to expand...

This is just nonsense of course.

"In November 2001, the Transportation Service Authority (TSA) was introduced to takeover all of the security functions of the FAA, the airlines, and the airports."

"On November 10, 1972 a trio of hijackers threatened to fly Southern Airways Flight 49 into a nuclear reactor at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. As a direct response to the incident, the Federal Aviation Administration required that all airlines began screening passengers and their carry-on baggage by January 5, 1973."

Now, tell me, did January 5, 1973 occur before or after 9/11 ? (Hint: before)

I don't understand this. Were you guys born in the 90s? We've always had federally regulated airport security as long as i've been alive.

If President Bush 2 had taken any steps at all in the direction of increased airport security, you might have a point. He elected to do absolutely nothing, a terrible, indefensible position that you strain to justify.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom