b757300
Posts: 3914
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 10:27 pm

John Kerry "Too Busy" For Terrorism Briefing

Sat Jul 10, 2004 2:05 pm

CNN LARRY KING LIVE
Interview With John Kerry, Teresa Heinz Kerry
Aired July 8, 2004 - 21:00 ET


KING: Tonight -- exclusive: Senator John Kerry and Teresa Heinz Kerry, their first interview event since he named John Edwards his vice presidential pick. Why do you think they'll win and should win the White House? And their reaction to this morning's terror warning, and more.
John Kerry, Teresa Heinz Kerry next, together for the hour on LARRY KING LIVE.

Good evening. Welcome to a special edition of LARRY KING LIVE here in New York with Senator John Kerry, who's frequently appeared on this show, and Teresa Heinz Kerry, her first appearance on this show. We thank you both very much for coming.

Let's get to, first thing's first, news of the day. Tom Ridge warned today about al Qaeda plans of a large-scale attack on the United States, didn't increase the -- do you see any politics in this? What's your reaction?

KERRY: Well, I haven't been briefed yet, Larry. They have offered to brief me; I just haven't had time. But all Americans are united in our efforts to defeat terrorism.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/08/lkl.00.html

Now, that wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for what Tom Daschle was saying about the information presented in this terrorism briefing.

Daschle concerned about 'sobering' terror briefing
BY DONNA SMITH, Black Hills Pioneer July 09, 2004

SPEARFISH -- Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said Thursday that he was very concerned about homeland security issues in the face of what he called the most sobering terror report he had heard recently....

Asked if the timing of the terror concerns might be aimed at stealing political thunder from the announcement of John Edwards as the democratic vice presidential candidate, Daschle replied, "The report is so sobering and so serious that I cannot bring myself to believe anyone in this administration would use this for political purposes."

Daschle said the most recent terror briefing was the second this week and contained information that there is a higher threat than there has been at any time since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1300&dept_id=156927&newsid=12283083&PAG=461&rfi=9
"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
 
scottysair
Posts: 6442
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 4:07 pm

RE: John Kerry "Too Busy" For Terrorism Briefing

Sat Jul 10, 2004 2:08 pm

Can we stopped with the war on terror and it should need to make rest in the peace for right now. It was over of 3 years in September 2004.
 
vafi88
Posts: 2981
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2001 10:32 am

RE: John Kerry "Too Busy" For Terrorism Briefing

Sat Jul 10, 2004 2:17 pm

Breaking news! Bush COMPLETELY overlooks August 6th memo....
I'd like to elect a president that has a Higher IQ than a retarted ant.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: John Kerry "Too Busy" For Terrorism Briefing

Sat Jul 10, 2004 2:20 pm

Vafi88, have you even read the aug 8th memo?

It was about as much of a warning of a terror attack as a high school current events report.

All background, absolutely no substance and positively nothing actionable.

but of course you never hear the left wing media point that out.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
vafi88
Posts: 2981
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2001 10:32 am

RE: John Kerry "Too Busy" For Terrorism Briefing

Sat Jul 10, 2004 2:23 pm

but of course you never hear the left wing media point that out.


Of course not...

Here's a tip, get to know me before making something that stupid. I watch Fox news just as much as I watch CNN...

But you're not going to read that... that's not in your agenda, is it?
I'd like to elect a president that has a Higher IQ than a retarted ant.
 
Russophile
Posts: 1304
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 9:22 am

RE: John Kerry "Too Busy" For Terrorism Briefing

Sat Jul 10, 2004 2:24 pm

All background, absolutely no substance and positively nothing actionable.

Are we talking about a 'threat' of terrorism in 2001? Or the reasoning GWB provided for invading Iraq? Just curious.
 
VS340
Posts: 431
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 9:50 am

RE: John Kerry "Too Busy" For Terrorism Briefing

Sat Jul 10, 2004 2:28 pm

Vafi88, have you even read the aug 8th memo?

It was about as much of a warning of a terror attack as a high school current events report.

All background, absolutely no substance and positively nothing actionable



Of course now that we know it was nothing really important AFTER the fact it is totally excusable that Bush ignored it in the first place

 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: John Kerry "Too Busy" For Terrorism Briefing

Sat Jul 10, 2004 2:28 pm

Good for bringing that up,

The Aug 8th memo is the one that liberals hold up as a clear warning that 9/11 was going to happen.

Totally unrelated to Iraq.

The report issued today by the Senate is critical of the CIA in both Iraqi and 9/11 intel. So the reference is relevent to a point.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
vafi88
Posts: 2981
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2001 10:32 am

RE: John Kerry "Too Busy" For Terrorism Briefing

Sat Jul 10, 2004 2:31 pm

I have heard testimony on the August 6th memo by not only the committe (9/11) members, but by Condi Rice... She said it didn't have anything other than that Al Qaida members wanted to strike within America by Hijacking a or some commercial aircraft and possibly targeting government buildings...

Wow... that's pretty much enough stuff to take some action... like maybe locking the cockpit doors...
I'd like to elect a president that has a Higher IQ than a retarted ant.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: John Kerry "Too Busy" For Terrorism Briefing

Sat Jul 10, 2004 2:39 pm

Vafi88, cockpit doors where reqired to be locked prior to 9/11, that has been FAA reg for years.

Like I said, the report basicly stated that Quackers where floating multiple ideas around.

There was no indication that any security changes needed to be made.


The only thing the 9/11 attack did was change Binnie, from a law enforcement to a military problem.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: John Kerry "Too Busy" For Terrorism Briefing

Sat Jul 10, 2004 2:55 pm

Who's to blame for 9/11. Wow...that's a tough question...NOT!

Is it Bush who ignored a general memo that stated what everybody knew in the back of their minds? NO.

Was it Clinton who let Bin Laden go, but was reasonably sure that OBL wasn't sophisticated enough to launch a massive attack and that another administration would eventually get him? Or that since the US has felt the hand of Muslim extremism before but he was in no politically correct position to flex military power in a world that basically had its head in the sand? Well, was it his fault? NO.

It was EVERYONE'S fault. YES, it was! Yours, mine, everyones'! Yes, Al Qaida did the deed, but the WHOLE world had its head in the sand. Everyone from Saudi Arabia, to the EU, to the US. No one took the threat of terrorism seriously even after the '93 WTC bombings. Not Clinton, not Bush, not the FBI, CIA, the FAA, or any of us. Just what were we focused on before that tragic September Tuesday?

Well, if I may borrow Scotty's time machine, I'll take you back to September 10th. What was America focused on? Gary Condit and Chandra Leavy, Shark Attacks, reality TV, and other stupid pop culture bullshit. Boy, did we take our safety for granted.

It's easy now for all the mooks on this site to blame Clinton or Bush for 9/11/01...be it for the Sudan affair, to the inane August 6th memo. What could either of those two do exactly before 9/11? Launch strikes? Clinton did that...they had no effect, and the bloody Europeans went on a "US is an imperialistic aggressor!" rant. Imagine Dubya doing the same!

So, once again, leave it to an independent to get the facts straight. All the partisans should get their heads out of their asses and quit politicizing this tragic event! What happened to the unity our country experienced!? Well, it was pissed away by the partisans...shame on them!

So seriously, get off all of your high horses, because it's nothing more than a "Coulda, woulda, shoulda" affair. Did any of YOU predict the attacks? Cuz if you did, then you should be in jail for not notifying anyone!  Insane

Hindsight is 20/20.

B4e-Forever New Frontiers

[Edited 2004-07-10 07:57:48]
 
An-225
Posts: 3859
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2000 2:55 am

RE: John Kerry "Too Busy" For Terrorism Briefing

Sat Jul 10, 2004 3:06 pm

I am surprised that 757300 has nothing better to do than just post every time someone from Democratic party takes a breath or farts. Seriously, man... it's getting ridiculous.

Alex.
Money does not bring you happiness. But it's better to cry in your own private limo than on a cold bus stop.
 
kdalaggie
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 1:10 pm

RE: John Kerry "Too Busy" For Terrorism Briefing

Sat Jul 10, 2004 3:16 pm

We American's must admit that something similar has happened before. Not in the meaning of terrorists attacks, but something close to it...

For those history buffs, please help or correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember somewhere during the annual Pear Harbor celebration times that it was said that the United States government put on an exhibition on an attack on Pearl Harbor in the late 1930's (please help with the correct year!) with the Japanese representatives in attendance. Didn't we even have Admiral Yamamoto attend school in the United States as well? Still, there were court martials and blame placed on many people after the fact.

In some ways we are all right and all wrong. I for one am still happy that we as Americans still are optimistic and loving society to not think about the tragedies that happened, but maybe that makes us naive as well.....is there really one right anwser?

Just my two cents.....
Gig'em Ags!!!!
 
Schoenorama
Posts: 2305
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 5:15 am

RE: John Kerry "Too Busy" For Terrorism Briefing

Sat Jul 10, 2004 4:29 pm

Boeing4ever:

"...WHOLE world had its head in the sand. Everyone from Saudi Arabia, to the EU, to the US. No one took the threat of terrorism seriously even after the '93 WTC bombings."


That's simply not true. Loads of foreign (non-US) intelligence agencies, including the French, German and British, had multiple indications from different sources in the years before 9/11, that a major attack (by air) was going to take place within the US. "In 1999, British intelligence gave a secret report to the US embassy. The report stated that al-Qaeda had plans to use "commercial aircraft" in "unconventional ways", "possibly as flying bombs."
In June 2001, German intelligence warned the US, Britain, and Israel that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and use them as weapons to attack "American and Israeli symbols which stand out."

In late July 2001, Egyptian intelligence received a report from an undercover agent in Afghanistan that "20 al-Qaeda members had slipped into the US and four of them had received flight training on Cessnas." To the Egyptians, pilots of small planes didn't sound terribly alarming, but they passed on the message to the CIA anyway, fully expecting Washington to request information. "The request never came." (Source: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essaytheytriedtowarnus.html or a simple Google search)

If any foreign intelligence can be accused of sticking its head in the sand, than that is certainly the case of the Israeli. The numerous reports indicating the Israeli were tracking the 9/11 hijackers before the attacks took place, are alarming. See http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=271607, or http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/DailyNews/2020_whitevan_020621.html, among many others.


"What could either of those two do exactly before 9/11? Launch strikes? Clinton did that...they had no effect, and the bloody Europeans went on a "US is an imperialistic aggressor!" rant."

Well, you tell me now, were those strikes Clinton launched very effective? Apparently not, which is another good indication one can't fight terrorism by launching a couple of missiles on a foreign country.


"Did any of YOU predict the attacks? Cuz if you did, then you should be in jail for not notifying anyone"

There were many more warnings coming in from non-US intelligence agencies than you seem to be aware of.
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: John Kerry "Too Busy" For Terrorism Briefing

Sat Jul 10, 2004 4:49 pm

Actually Schoenorama brings up a good point.

Prior to 9/11 there where several airliner plots, such at the transpacific airliner one that where FOILED which would indicate that the terrorism countersteps being taken at that time where doing their job.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: John Kerry "Too Busy" For Terrorism Briefing

Sat Jul 10, 2004 5:02 pm

Kerry is under no threat from terrorists. After all, the terrorists WANT their champion to win, the man who will grant them their wishes at last.
I wish I were flying
 
Schoenorama
Posts: 2305
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 5:15 am

RE: John Kerry "Too Busy" For Terrorism Briefing

Sat Jul 10, 2004 5:26 pm

L-188:

"Actually Schoenorama brings up a good point."

I've just made a screen-capture of that remark! Wow! It must be the first time (and probably the last) that YOU, of all, make such a remark about of posting of mine.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Jwenting (Jeroentje):

"Kerry is under no threat from terrorists. After all, the terrorists WANT their champion to win, the man who will grant them their wishes at last."

Actually, they'd be much better of with another four years of Bush. Look at the increase of terrorism-attacks around the world since he decided to attack Iraq, look at the support al-Qaeda and alike is getting right now.

Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: John Kerry "Too Busy" For Terrorism Briefing

Sat Jul 10, 2004 5:32 pm

I doubt it is the first and doubt it will be the last, you just see the world a bit different.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
nosedive
Posts: 2176
Joined: Sun May 23, 2004 2:18 pm

RE: John Kerry "Too Busy" For Terrorism Briefing

Sat Jul 10, 2004 5:54 pm

Kerry is under no threat from terrorists. After all, the terrorists WANT their champion to win, the man who will grant them their wishes at last.

And pray tell, what would Kerry do, bend over backwards for them? I think not.

As for the Larry King incident, so what? If he didn't have the time today, that doesn't mean he wont have the time later on. Kerry never implicitly stated that'd he'd never read the report, just that he hasn't had the time, yet. Furthermore, read a few lines down: KING: When do you -- when do you get your briefing?
KERRY: We're arranging it. It's at the end of the week I'll get it.


Also, as Kerry also pointed out , KING: Executive... KERRY: ...some executive, some public. Ronald Reagan came to the office as a governor with no foreign policy experience. George Bush came with zero foreign policy experience and used Dick Cheney as his buffer to say, well, this will be OK. So if we want to polarize this, let's spin it both ways  Laugh out loud. But my point here is that Kerry is using his resources given to him, and is better off than many of his predecessors were at this stage of the game- remember the "stategery" v "lockbox" skit on SNL? A stretched example, but political satire can reflect the mood for or against a person. In 2000, as witnessed by my very stretched example (I really just wanted to use SNL  Smile), the mood was that Bush was extremely weak in foreign policy. Yet he still got the presidency, no matter how much you dispute it. The same went for Reagan, who faced that grave threat of communism and history looks at him kindly.

So my question is again, so what? So what if Kerry hasn't read the report by the interview? As witnessed by other presidents, you can get into office if you're "too busy" to be briefed on foreign policy. Will the same thing happen come November, hopefully November? Stay tuned.

Asked if the timing of the terror concerns might be aimed at stealing political thunder from the announcement of John Edwards as the democratic vice presidential candidate, Daschle replied, "The report is so sobering and so serious that I cannot bring myself to believe anyone in this administration would use this for political purposes."

Well Daschle may say that, but we here at A.net know how to spin things!
 
cptkrell
Posts: 3186
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 10:50 pm

RE: John Kerry "Too Busy" For Terrorism Briefing

Sat Jul 10, 2004 8:57 pm

Nosedive wrote: "...Will the same thing happen come November...?..."

Don't you mean December?  Smile (Courtesy: Jay Leno) Regards...Jack
all best; jack
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: John Kerry "Too Busy" For Terrorism Briefing

Sun Jul 11, 2004 12:02 am

Kerry is under no threat from terrorists. After all, the terrorists WANT their champion to win, the man who will grant them their wishes at last.

Jwenting, if you REALLY believe that Kerry is "champion" for the terrorists, then you've lost all sense of reality. John Kerry is no friend of a terrorist, and he won't be. If you think that, you're a lunatic. Not "maybe" but "for sure".

I could easily argue that Mr. Bush as been a boon for terrorists, looking at the situation in Iraq these days, but that isn't the truth, and neither is what you alluded to. You're veiled jab that somehow Kerry is sympathetic of terrorism is load of horse shit that could fertilize a thousand-acre farm for a year.
 
go canada!
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2001 1:33 am

RE: John Kerry "Too Busy" For Terrorism Briefing

Sun Jul 11, 2004 4:39 am

Actually, al queda sources have been reported to say that they want Bush to win because if Kerry wins then theres more chance of america and europe being united and that Kerry would still hunt the terrorists down.
It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
 
mdsh00
Posts: 3968
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 11:28 am

RE: John Kerry "Too Busy" For Terrorism Briefing

Sun Jul 11, 2004 5:05 am

B4e- You said it perfectly. I completely agree with you. Welcome to my RU.

I think its disgusting how both Democrats and Republicans have made 9/11 into something political. We all screwed up.
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a big fat white guy who is threatened by change."
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: John Kerry "Too Busy" For Terrorism Briefing

Sun Jul 11, 2004 1:05 pm

Schoenorama,

Long time no speak! When was it last time? Big grin

Now, on to your post...it's simply a case of coulda, woulda, shoulda...and it's much deeper and even more complex than that. You forget the state of mind of the whole world...and yes, the US is part of the world, last I checked.  Big grin How many terrorist warning does the US and other countries get a day now? Better yet, how many up to September 10th? Not all warning were credible. All those warnings raised red flags, but they never warned what was going to be hit, and when. On top of that, at the time, neither the FBI or CIA could have felt those warnings to be credible. Whatever went through their minds, we'll never fully know.

Well, you tell me now, were those strikes Clinton launched very effective? Apparently not, which is another good indication one can't fight terrorism by launching a couple of missiles on a foreign country.

The fact is, every time the US defends itself (this is before the Iraq war), we are labeled as warmongers by our allies. It literally did take 9/11 to finally get a number of countries willing enough to deal with the Taliban. Missiles aren't always effective, no, but military action was going to have to be taken sooner or later. (again, leave out Iraq, it has nothing to do with 9/11). Before 9/11 though, Clinton or Bush would have been crucified.

There were many more warnings coming in from non-US intelligence agencies than you seem to be aware of.

Many more warnings? Again, we get thousands of warnings every day. Not all are credible. To insist that one party or another dropped the ball is sad considering there are multiple factors at play. Perhaps MD-90's 767 in the WTC thread should also have been seen as a warning...or this little tidbit that I saw on TV on its airdate:

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/Lone%20Gunmen/The_Lone_Gunmen_Episode_1.htm

When I first heard about the attacks, I immediately thought of that episode. The whole event seemed lifted from a B rate Hollywood spy movie.

Again, Hindsight is 20/20.

B4e-Forever New Frontiers
 
CPH-R
Posts: 6064
Joined: Thu May 03, 2001 5:19 pm

RE: John Kerry "Too Busy" For Terrorism Briefing

Sun Jul 11, 2004 1:25 pm

The fact is, every time the US defends itself (this is before the Iraq war), we are labeled as warmongers by our allies. It literally did take 9/11 to finally get a number of countries willing enough to deal with the Taliban.

Eh, leading members of the Taliban visited Texas while Dubya was govenor there - not to mention that they visited the State Department in D.C. IIRC, the Taliban even offered bin Ladin on a silver platter, though I'm not sure if it was in the last few months of Clinton or in the early days of Dubya.
 
Goose
Posts: 1771
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2003 3:40 am

RE: John Kerry "Too Busy" For Terrorism Briefing

Sun Jul 11, 2004 1:27 pm

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"Talk to me, Goose..."
 
mdsh00
Posts: 3968
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 11:28 am

RE: John Kerry "Too Busy" For Terrorism Briefing

Sun Jul 11, 2004 3:13 pm

Before 9/11 though, Clinton or Bush would have been crucified.

To add to that, I think many of the Clinton accusers seem to forget that many of his Republican critics accused him of Wagging the Dog when he sent those missles over. Remember that this was done in the midst of the whole Monica scandal. It's now these same critics that accuse him of not doing enough. I'm pretty sure that the SAME thing would have happened to Bush if he were president instead of Clinton.
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a big fat white guy who is threatened by change."
 
Schoenorama
Posts: 2305
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 5:15 am

RE: John Kerry "Too Busy" For Terrorism Briefing

Sun Jul 11, 2004 8:41 pm

Boeing4ever:

"Now, on to your post...it's simply a case of coulda, woulda, shoulda...and it's much deeper and even more complex than that. You forget the state of mind of the whole world...and yes, the US is part of the world, last I checked. "

Terrorism isn't something which was invented on 9/11. It has been around for ages in different forms. Whether a terrorist strike kills 1 person or 3 or nearly 3,000 is really irrelevant. What counts are the motives behind it and, not less important, against whom it is aimed. Now terrorism aimed against the US has been around for several decades if not longer, and almost always came from groups with roots in countries in the Middle East. Their objectives and motives behind the attacks they carried out against US interests over these decades almost always have a direct link with either the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and/or the different undemocratic regimes in this region which receive(d) full support of the US. With this in mind, one cannot say an attack on the US as happened on 9/11 could not have been foreseen. Many terrorism-experts, before 9/11, believed an attack on US would eventually and they also knew which groups were going to perform the attack.

The problem is that general American public and many politicians from either side either underestimated this threat or simply believed that 2 oceans was sufficient protection from any terrorist attack on US soil, despite the WTC bombing which clearly showed how easy it was for a terrorist group to establish itself within the US. A striking example of this is that from the moment this Bush Administration took office until 9/11, Cheney never convened his "Counterterrorism task-force". However, he did convene his "Energy Task Force" at least 10 times, together with another 6 private meetings with Enron executives. To me, this show that the terrorism and related issues was never very high on the Bush agenda prior to 9/11, if it was on their agenda at all.

To me, the intel community was convinced a strike on US soil was inevitable and I believe they generally did their job well in informing their leaders of the info they had and their analysis. This is where the real problem starts. As numerous people and sources have stated, among them Richard Clarke, it was very hard if at all possible for the experts to even organize a meeting on this subject with their superiors of this Administration. Call it a form of collective pollitical blindness.


"The fact is, every time the US defends itself (this is before the Iraq war), we are labeled as warmongers by our allies."

Because you can't fight terrorism by launching missiles, history has taught that over and over again. Just look at these last 3 years, Afganistan and Iraq. Has global terrorism gone down? NO. Is Afghanistan a safer place? Except for Kabul, it certainly is not! Has support for terrorism in the region gone down? Certainly NOT! Are the terrorists and their insurgency-brothers losing the War on Terrorism in Iraq? Certainly NOT.

Terrorism is hard to fight, let's not forget that. The British and the Spanish know all about it, unfortunately. And what they do know is that bombing the hell out of Fallujah is completely counterproductive.

"It literally did take 9/11 to finally get a number of countries willing enough to deal with the Taliban."

Well some Americans were very keen to 'deal with the Taliban' before 9/11, although of a different nature. You make it sound like before 9/11 the US was already willing to get rid of the Taliban regime which is not completely true. First, because of the fact that the US helped that same regime. Secondly, because the US applied it successfull 'containment' policy it had previously applied to Saddam's regime, amongst many others.

"Many more warnings? Again, we get thousands of warnings every day. Not all are credible"

As I (tried to) explain above, terrorism-experts all seemed not only to agree on the likelyhood of an foreign terrorist attack on US soil, they also seem to agree that such an attack was imminent. Now I agree with you that it was very difficult to filter all the info available. But I do believe the Political part, the leaders did underestimate the threat (Ashcroft even wanted a budget-cut on terrorism before 9/11) and whith them, an overconfident American public.

Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: John Kerry "Too Busy" For Terrorism Briefing

Sun Jul 11, 2004 9:18 pm

So what - Tom Ridge yelling "Oh God we're all gonna be murdered in our beds ! " for the 11th time that week - oooh major breaking news ! Why should John Kerry pay him the slightest attention, nobody else does.

Threat Level = Overdone (again). Give it a rest Tom, wishing don't make it so.
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: John Kerry "Too Busy" For Terrorism Briefing

Mon Jul 12, 2004 12:50 pm

Terrorism isn't something which was invented on 9/11. It has been around for ages in different forms. Whether a terrorist strike kills 1 person or 3 or nearly 3,000 is really irrelevant. What counts are the motives behind it and, not less important, against whom it is aimed. Now terrorism aimed against the US has been around for several decades if not longer, and almost always came from groups with roots in countries in the Middle East. Their objectives and motives behind the attacks they carried out against US interests over these decades almost always have a direct link with either the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and/or the different undemocratic regimes in this region which receive(d) full support of the US. With this in mind, one cannot say an attack on the US as happened on 9/11 could not have been foreseen. Many terrorism-experts, before 9/11, believed an attack on US would eventually and they also knew which groups were going to perform the attack.

Where'd I say Terrorism was invented on 9/11. Yes, an attack on the US could be forseen...but that's about it. An attack. Hell, I could plan to "attack" Spain, but do you know when, where, how? Difficult to tell.

The problem is that general American public and many politicians from either side either underestimated this threat or simply believed that 2 oceans was sufficient protection from any terrorist attack on US soil, despite the WTC bombing which clearly showed how easy it was for a terrorist group to establish itself within the US. A striking example of this is that from the moment this Bush Administration took office until 9/11, Cheney never convened his "Counterterrorism task-force". However, he did convene his "Energy Task Force" at least 10 times, together with another 6 private meetings with Enron executives. To me, this show that the terrorism and related issues was never very high on the Bush agenda prior to 9/11, if it was on their agenda at all.

Again, it has to do with the post-cold war era. Hell, you just ended up backing up my whole point. complacency ruled. And energy was a far more pressing and urgent issue in the eyes of the American public before 9/11, needn't you ask all the California residents who underwent "rolling blackouts". Fighting terrorism isn't the ONLY task of a government. It's a critical one, but then again, there are many other critical tasks as well.

To me, the intel community was convinced a strike on US soil was inevitable and I believe they generally did their job well in informing their leaders of the info they had and their analysis. This is where the real problem starts. As numerous people and sources have stated, among them Richard Clarke, it was very hard if at all possible for the experts to even organize a meeting on this subject with their superiors of this Administration. Call it a form of collective pollitical blindness.

The flaws of our government ironically include the fact that politicians have to be elected. Of course, I'm not suggesting in any way that we abandon democracy, but politicians sometimes sacrifice priorities to keep the constituent happy. And remember, Bush wasn't very popular going into the whole thing. I call it collective world blindness. There were just other things that got priority. Coulda, woulda, shoulda.

Because you can't fight terrorism by launching missiles, history has taught that over and over again. Just look at these last 3 years, Afghanistan and Iraq. Has global terrorism gone down? NO. Is Afghanistan a safer place? Except for Kabul, it certainly is not! Has support for terrorism in the region gone down? Certainly NOT! Are the terrorists and their insurgency-brothers losing the War on Terrorism in Iraq? Certainly NOT.

Afghanistan is considerably better off than Iraq. Police action simply wasn't going to knock down the Taliban. That did take military action, however, not in the form of 2 or 3 cruise missiles. It took ground efforts. No, military action won't ever be the end all to terrorism, but in cases like this, there's little choice. As for Iraq, that's a separate pile of manure.

Terrorism is hard to fight, let's not forget that. The British and the Spanish know all about it, unfortunately. And what they do know is that bombing the hell out of Fallujah is completely counterproductive.

Amen to that, but again, the Taliban could have all of the sanctions in the world placed on them...they still would have stayed put. And OBL in Afghanistan WAS an imminent threat.

To tie it all in, with the constant threats...has anyone ever read "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"?

B4e-Forever New Frontiers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Pihero, vc10 and 23 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos