If I had half a mind, I could make Fahrenheit 666 and state that Jesus was really in league with Satan.

447862[/snapback]

 

:lol :lol :lol

447870[/snapback]

 

Thank you. Thank you. I'll be here all week.

 

But it is possible, you know! I'm just asking to exercise some critical thinking here. You don't just look at the "facts" as presented to you. You question the source, you question the relevance, you question the context. If they don't fit, you must acquit.

I haven't seen the movie, but I'm pretty sure most of what in it is bull like,

"I saw Bush flying with a remote control jetliner and he crashed it into the WTC."

447784[/snapback]

 

If you really think that, I suggest you see the movie

 

 

:thumbup

447786[/snapback]

 

I can't support a liberal's money making scheme.

447823[/snapback]

 

Better than voting for man with no brainpower...

447860[/snapback]

 

Why do you liberals criticize Bush's intelligence while proclaiming Clinton is a genuis? Clinton looked to North Korea over the DMZ and forgot to take the cap off the binoculars. He is also the first person to need the world "is" defined for them.

Moore also offers a number of suggestions that the Bush administration's military actions abroad and efforts to increase homeland security were motivated by nefarious hidden agendas.

 

For instance, here is his description of the US campaign against the Taliban government of Afghanistan:

 

The United States began bombing Afghanistan just four weeks after 9/11. Mr. Bush said he was doing so because the Taliban government of Afghanistan had been harboring Bin Laden... [montage of clips of Bush saying the US would "smoke out" Bin Laden] For all his tough talk, Bush really didn't do much.

Moore then shows former counterterrorism advisor Richard Clarke criticizing the war, saying it took two months for US special forces to be deployed in the area of Afghanistan where Bin Laden was hiding. This fact is portrayed as an indication of a hidden motive:

 

Two months? A mass murderer who attacked the United States was given a two-month head start? Who in their right mind would do that?... [clip of Bush] Or was the war in Afghanistan really about something else? Perhaps the answer was in Houston, Texas.

Moore proceeds with the heavy-handed narrative, suggesting he is unraveling the alleged hidden story of the US war in Afghanistan through a series of loose juxtapositions

 

 

In 1997, while George W. Bush was governor of Texas, a delegation of Taliban leaders from Afghanistan flew to Houston to meet with Unocal executives to discuss the building of a pipeline through Afghanistan bringing natural gas from the Caspian Sea. And who got a Caspian Sea drilling contract the same day Unocal signed the pipeline deal? A company headed by a man named Dick Cheney: Halliburton.

[clips of Bush and Cheney talking about Halliburton from 2000]

And who else stood to benefit from the pipeline? Bush's #1 campaign contributor: Kenneth Lay and the good people of Enron. Only the British press covered this trip.

Contrary's to Moore's implication, the fact that Bush was governor of Texas at the time of the Taliban/Unocal meeting does nothing to prove that he was somehow involved in the meeting. Governors are obviously not responsible for every business dealing that takes place in their state. Nonetheless, Moore slips his name in to link him to the deal.

 

For all that context they don't really provide much in way of facts just their own brand of alleging. Maybe I can start using these type of arguements. "President Bush in his state of the union didn't provide much in the way of facts just his own personal belief that Abortion was morally wrong and he went off from there" That's what most of their facts are their own plotting and stories they quote from other stories rather than actually challenging these head on. They go on to say a governor would not know about buisness deals in his own state. Here's the problem Lay actually was his #1contributor along with as many say The Real Party Boss in all of Texas, putting his money into the pockets of those who reflect his own interest. Bush and Lay were extreamly close friends who would spend countless hours together.

 

Lay directly contributed 47 k from Lay and Enron gave Bush $146,500, No one went anywhere in Texas Politics without Lay's blessing.

 

Now on to the fact that Bush had no place with Lay's buisness deals. Back in 1988 when Aregentina was looking for contracts on a pipeline Rudolfo Terragno who was the minister of public works got a phone call from one George W Bush saying that rewarding a pipeline contract to enron would be very favorable to THe US. This of course was right after his father had won the presidency. Bush's has denied all these claims, his proof you ask? A calendar which does not have Terragno's name on it and that's actually his proof.

 

Enron's proposal for the pipeline was a joke.

 

After Poppy visited Argentine in 90, our ambassador Todman sent a letter to the minister of finance which stated that If Argentina did not stop giving preference to domestic industries 8 big US Companies would leave Argentina. Enron was at the top of that list of corporations. When Poppy went to Kuwait after he was out to accept a piece award, Enron execs went with him to talk to Kuwait. Lay does not deny this.

 

In 97 in a story that was big here Bush called Ridge here pushing deregulation policy's on behalf of Lay. When Bush got into the whitehouse, Lay made two FERC appointments. Lay was also the one who pushed for Bush not to put Caps on The California Electric Prices. As you can see Lay had the white house whenever he wanted it. Bush and his people were in the process of pushing Enron into an Indian Project but that all stopped when the collapse broke.

 

To say Bush and Lay did not share at least an understanding on their buisness deals is a joke.

 

The filmmaker continues his narration by directly linking the 1997 deal with a 2001 visit to the US by a Taliban envoy:

 

Then, in 2001, just five and a half months before 9/11, the Bush administration welcomed a special Taliban envoy to tour the United States and help improve the image of the Taliban government.

[clip of envoy press conference]

Here is the Taliban official visiting our State Department to meet with US officials. Why on earth would the Bush administration allow a Taliban leader to visit the United States knowing that the Taliban were harboring the man who bombed the USS Cole and our African embassies? Well, I guess 9/11 put a stop to that.

This rhetorical question is entirely disingenuous. Moore suggests that the US was indifferent to the Taliban's harboring of Bin Laden, but Isikoff and Hosenball point out that the administration met with the envoy in part to discuss the fate of Bin Laden, who they were pressing the Taliban to turn over.

--

 

Their they go again basing their entire point on an article. I can find articles in support of Moore in major publications which under this type of fact checking would mean that Moore is factual. That's the type of standard this whole article is setting, go on other people's work and your own plotting.

 

Moore then implies that the war was really a front for Unocal to create a pipeline:

 

When the invasion of Afghanistan was complete, we installed its new president, Hamid Karzai. Who was Hamid Karzai? He was a former advisor to Unocal. Bush also appointed as our envoy to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, who was also a former Unocal advisor. I guess you can probably see where this is leading. Faster than you can say black gold Texas tea, Afghanistan signed an agreement with her neighboring countries to build a pipeline through Afghanistan carrying natural gas from the Caspian Sea.

But as Ken Silverstein wrote in The American Prospect back in 2002 and Isikoff and Hosenball show in their article about "Fahrenheit," Unocal dropped support for the pipeline in 1998 (the company has issued a press release making this point). In 2002, Afghanistan did sign the agreement Moore described, but Unocal is not involved in the project, which is still in its planning stages and may never come to fruition.

-- Tis True

 

, Moore presents a series of anecdotal examples of what he sees as misguided efforts to improve homeland security: FBI questioning of a man who made derogatory statements about President Bush at a gym, infiltration of a peace group in Fresno by a sheriff's detective on an anti-terrorism task force, a mother who was forced to drink her breast milk during an airport security screening to prove that it was not a toxic substance, and the decision to allow airline passengers to carry lighters and matches onto planes while banning other items. Again, based on this flimsy collection of evidence, Moore suggests a hidden motive:

 

Ok, let me see if I got this straight. Old guys in the gym - bad. Peace groups in Fresno - bad. Breast milk - really bad. But matches and lighters on a plane - hey, no problem. Was this really about our safety? Or was something else going on?

He then shows a series of clips arguing that Oregon state troopers are underfunded and have little manpower. Without making any argument about how this relates to the rest of the country or the federal government's actions, Moore jumps right into more implications of conspiracy and nefarious motives, keying off a trooper's wish for a manual on how to catch terrorists:

 

Of course, the Bush administration didn't hand out a manual on how to deal with the terrorist threat because the terrorist threat wasn't what this was all about. They just wanted us to be fearful enough so that we'd get behind what their real plan was.

Again, Moore's meaning when he says "what this was all about" is unclear, but it appears to be a reference to the emphasis on homeland security after September 11. "Their real plan" is, as the movie later makes clear, a reference to the war in Iraq. But regardless of any previous plans to invade Iraq, the argument makes no sense. The breast milk example, for instance, indicates an overzealous devotion to homeland security, not indifference to it. And Oregon's state budgetary woes are hardly proof that the federal government's homeland security effort was insincere.

-- There they go on again. They supply small parts in the film to make an entire case out off all that movie they were able to get breast milk as a way to prove our homeland security is strong and that our HomeLand Effort is doing well. Here's the facts though:

 

November 14th 2001: Democrats propose 15 billion to go to homeland Security which The White House opposes

 

December 4th 2001: The Senate Appropriations Committee votes 29-0 to give 13.1 billion to hs programs. Bush threatens to veto

 

December 19th 2001: Through pressure from the white house conferees reduce funds by an additional 200 million the reduction comes from airport security, port security, nuclear facility security, and postal security.

 

June 7th 2002: The senate by a bipartisan vote of 71 - 22 pass a spending bill that includes 8.3 billion for Homeland security. The next day Bush's top aides recommend a veto because of it's "excessive homeland security spending"

 

July 19th: From further White House Pressure, Homeland defense funding is reduced yet again, the money comes from Food Security, cyber security, police and fire radios, nuclear securtity, airport security, lab work for chem and bio weapons, port and water security. Who cares about that stuff?

 

August 13th 2002: Bush decides not to spend 2.5 billion in emergency funding for Homeland Security.

 

Febuary 3th 2003: President Bush submits his 2004 budget which reduces the budget of Homeland Security by 1.9%(Yeah tax cuts are more important than security anyway)

 

March 21, 2003: Republicans defeat a series of of 4 amendments aimed at increasing Security.

 

March 25th 2003, Republicans defeat three amendments aimed at increasing homeland security.

 

April 2 2003: Bill to provide 1 billion for port security programs is defeated by Senate Republicans.

 

Yeah, I hate to tell this site but yeah his Homeland Security record is underfunded and getting smaller.

The fact that Bush and his administration knew that there was a HIGH chance of a terror attack, and was told repeatedly about this in many seperate White House briefings, yet he still did not take any extra measures of security or precautions around 9/11, which was the very LEAST he could do.

447791[/snapback]

 

What specifically would you have had them do? (remembering that all this intel was non-specific as to method or target - the US is a pretty big place...)

447980[/snapback]

 

Well, it stated that it would involve an attack In the air.

 

He could've taken the time to use that BIG fact and other intelligence given to him and atleast have made an effort.

 

He did no such thing

It isn't Bush's fault that the FAA needs body bags to change policy.

it's also said that FDR new about Pearl Harbor before it happened.

 

:plain

The simple point that I was trying to make though was:

 

- he knew there was a large risk of an attack

- he had many briefings with his staff about it

- he had been advised by his staff to act upon the issue

 

--He ignored the issue completely

 

 

If George W. would've just made one of his usual half-a**ed attempts at doing something right, than that would've been OK. But the fact that he has the nerve to ignore it completely is beyond absurd.

It's not a cake walk, but If you are saying it could not be done than you are mistaken.

 

With the sources and the type of high-profile people Bush works around, there must've been numerous different ways they could have approached the issue

 

The Pentagon had files on most of the 9/11 hijackers as well as other potential "terrorists" that may have been in the states at that time that they were, or atleast SHOULD HAVE, been keeping a close eye on them and tracking their movements...

 

For Example: Let's take Muhammed Atta, he was taking flying lessons in a small low-profile town on the Gulf Coast of Florida (Venice) . With a little bit of research and effort they could've EASILY frozen his assets and tracked him down in a matter of probably less than 48 hours. According to the 9/11 commision he was in FBI files that stated he was in the country illegally and they had an idea of where he was.

 

Once you get Atta, more pieces would have fallen into place, hence his ties to the other hijackers.

 

 

I'm not giving you my plan and saying it is fool proof and would work, this is just something I've brainstormed at 12:30 in the morning. Imagine if the Pentagon and The Bush administration had taken this issue seriously and put some effort into this what they could've accomplished.

Let's say you were president:

 

-You've gotten a document stating that there will be a devastating terrorist attack, on U.S. Soil, using an AIRCRAFT

 

- The Pentagon/FBI has done a search for suspected "terrorists" on U.S. soil.

 

- Muhammed Atta, a known terrorist and muslim extremist is found to be in Venice FL. taking FLYING lessions

 

- Atta has overstayed his Visa while attending lessons at a private hanger at the city airport.

 

- Atta has ties to Osama Bin Laden

 

- Muhammed Atta is only interested in learning how to FLY an aircraft, he does not need to know or have any interest whatsoever in learning to LAND an airplane.

 

 

 

You have this information laid out at your feet,

 

well if you dont want to take immediate action, you can definately sense that something seriously wrong is going on,

 

but you dont want to take Atta into custody for a minor offense which will become public and alert his fellow hijackers that the Government is catching on to their plan.

 

It's not as though, jumping in and arresting him right away is the only adequate plan for spoiling their attack. We are talking about a President SURROUNDED by the finest, most elite defense system in the World.

 

But yet he doesnt even TRY to figure out how to nab them...His administration, The FBI and the Pentagon did their job of alerting him NUMEROUS times in MULTIPLE briefings about these terrorists attacks on the U.S. yet he refused to take them seriously despite all this information being spoon-fed to him.

I just want to ask a question to the republicans here, who HAVE seen the film.

 

 

I've seen the movie, but i'd want to know what YOU think...as far as % wise

 

Can you give me a percentage of facts or ideas that the film stated that you believe are TRUE?

 

70 percent?

 

75?

447761[/snapback]

It is an unswerable question, because Moore isn't presenting facts that we cang rade. He offers insinuations and ect. A film can be only 5% wrong and make a radically wrong and misinformed message.

Sad but true DT

 

and there are an amount of facts made in that movie that are pretty much indisputable. But some people refuse to believe it because they've been twisted and bent over backwords with the lies they've been told by this administration.

447764[/snapback]

I assume you didn't read the review where I proved many of his "facts" were 100% wrong.

The main problem in moore's film is HOW he uses the facts that are correct. For example you show a group of militants dragging bodies of americans through the ground, but if the voice over is a critcism against bush, the image serves for that purpose; the same image can be used to inspire youths to join the military. in fact a friend of mine was contemplating enlistment into the armed forces and after seeing F911 e enlisted in the marines. He told me the movie inspired him to go out there and defend our country against our enemies, who are the iraqis and terrorists not our administration. And as a side note my friend is a moderate democrat.

Nothing actionable here. There are hundres of "threats" received every week. What differentiates this one (from an administrative priority POV) from others that may have much more specific and actionable information in them?

 

What differentiaties this one, was that it was being brought up, again, and again in mulitple briefings, each time with a higher risk and each time with more information.

 

Actionable - but only good for a deportation hearing that would be appealed. Nothing overtly criminal on US soil was done at this point.

 

As for Atta being a "known terrorist" at this point - that's a highly debatable. Ordinarily anyone on the known terrorist lists doesn't get a visa in the first place.

 

Which administration was it that let him in BTW?...Clinton.

 

Even though the only illegal thing he was doing at the MOMENT, was overstaying his visa...They still had the power to arrest and detain him, until they found out further info.

This was legal even before the Patriot Act

 

FYI - Atta was ALREADY a licenced pilot when he came into this country. Seeking additional instruction on different aircraft types is very common for those looking to upgrade their ratings. In reality, the "lessons" angle has been way overblown as to actual significance...although it certainly plays very well to a public that's ignorant of how pilot licencing/rating system actually works.

 

Don't you think it's kind of fishy that one of the top men on the FBI/CIA watch list is inside the U.S. learning how to Fly an airplane and not land it. During a time where the president is getting daily briefings on how there will be an attack on U.S. soil involving Planes.

 

As far as im concerned it doesnt matter that he was already a licensed pilot. He was obviously "refreshing" his skills for something. And the government should've caught on. As it states in the article Atta stuck out like a sore thumb. and the flight trainers even called him the "little terrorist" behind his back. If the government looked into this at all, and done some research, they could've made a major bust.

 

If all this WAS actually as you say "laid out at the president's feet" you'd have a very solid argument for impeachment because of gross incompetence.

 

The problem of course is that it never was presened in the manner you want us to believe. All of these pieces of information were never put into a specific and individual actionable threat document presented to the president describing Atta and his situation. They were scattered all over the place in different agencies and among different investigators with no real systems in pace for universal crossreferencing among them. The magic of 20/20 hindsight and after the fact editing is what makes it seem "obvious" now.

 

 

 

by "laid out at his feet" I mean that this was easily accesible to him. It was as you say "Scattered in the different agencies". Bush has connections with these agencies, Clues and facts were all around him and his staff...Yet he didnt catch on to anything.

 

WHY?

 

Why didnt he even TRY?

 

Maybe because he was on vacation golfing?

There's no question that Bush doesn't run the show. I hate "Bush", but by that I mean the whole administration (and when it comes to Clinton, I hate the man more than the actual administration.) Moore did a good job showing the Bush is a scared oaf who does not have his hands on the wheel...however, Pipelines, Iraq war conspiracies, and saudi connections were not proven at all in his film. Let's give credit where it's due and not give it where it is not due.

Hey soriano can do you still have tht info about why the afghan pipeline conspiracy isnt true? I'm actually researching this matter and i know you had a bunch of stuff about it.

http://www.marlinbaseball.com/forums/index...1&st=&p=entry

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2608713.stm

 

From spinsanity.org:

 

"Moore then implies that the war was really a front for Unocal to create a pipeline:

 

When the invasion of Afghanistan was complete, we installed its new president, Hamid Karzai. Who was Hamid Karzai? He was a former advisor to Unocal. Bush also appointed as our envoy to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, who was also a former Unocal advisor. I guess you can probably see where this is leading. Faster than you can say black gold Texas tea, Afghanistan signed an agreement with her neighboring countries to build a pipeline through Afghanistan carrying natural gas from the Caspian Sea.

But as Ken Silverstein wrote in The American Prospect back in 2002 and Isikoff and Hosenball show in their article about "Fahrenheit," Unocal dropped support for the pipeline in 1998 (the company has issued a press release making this point). In 2002, Afghanistan did sign the agreement Moore described, but Unocal is not involved in the project, which is still in its planning stages and may never come to fruition."

 

I hope all of this helps

http://www.marlinbaseball.com/forums/index...1&st=&p=entry

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2608713.stm

 

From spinsanity.org:

 

"Moore then implies that the war was really a front for Unocal to create a pipeline:

 

When the invasion of Afghanistan was complete, we installed its new president, Hamid Karzai. Who was Hamid Karzai? He was a former advisor to Unocal. Bush also appointed as our envoy to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, who was also a former Unocal advisor. I guess you can probably see where this is leading. Faster than you can say black gold Texas tea, Afghanistan signed an agreement with her neighboring countries to build a pipeline through Afghanistan carrying natural gas from the Caspian Sea.

But as Ken Silverstein wrote in The American Prospect back in 2002 and Isikoff and Hosenball show in their article about "Fahrenheit," Unocal dropped support for the pipeline in 1998 (the company has issued a press release making this point). In 2002, Afghanistan did sign the agreement Moore described, but Unocal is not involved in the project, which is still in its planning stages and may never come to fruition."

 

I hope all of this helps

448653[/snapback]

 

 

Thank you sir

Nothing actionable here. There are hundres of "threats" received every week. What differentiates this one (from an administrative priority POV) from others that may have much more specific and actionable information in them?

 

What differentiaties this one, was that it was being brought up, again, and again in mulitple briefings, each time with a higher risk and each time with more information.

 

Actionable - but only good for a deportation hearing that would be appealed. Nothing overtly criminal on US soil was done at this point.

 

As for Atta being a "known terrorist" at this point - that's a highly debatable. Ordinarily anyone on the known terrorist lists doesn't get a visa in the first place.

 

Which administration was it that let him in BTW?...Clinton.

 

Even though the only illegal thing he was doing at the MOMENT, was overstaying his visa...They still had the power to arrest and detain him, until they found out further info.

This was legal even before the Patriot Act

 

FYI - Atta was ALREADY a licenced pilot when he came into this country. Seeking additional instruction on different aircraft types is very common for those looking to upgrade their ratings. In reality, the "lessons" angle has been way overblown as to actual significance...although it certainly plays very well to a public that's ignorant of how pilot licencing/rating system actually works.

 

Don't you think it's kind of fishy that one of the top men on the FBI/CIA watch list is inside the U.S. learning how to Fly an airplane and not land it. During a time where the president is getting daily briefings on how there will be an attack on U.S. soil involving Planes.

 

As far as im concerned it doesnt matter that he was already a licensed pilot. He was obviously "refreshing" his skills for something. And the government should've caught on. As it states in the article Atta stuck out like a sore thumb. and the flight trainers even called him the "little terrorist" behind his back. If the government looked into this at all, and done some research, they could've made a major bust.

 

If all this WAS actually as you say "laid out at the president's feet" you'd have a very solid argument for impeachment because of gross incompetence.

 

The problem of course is that it never was presened in the manner you want us to believe. All of these pieces of information were never put into a specific and individual actionable threat document presented to the president describing Atta and his situation. They were scattered all over the place in different agencies and among different investigators with no real systems in pace for universal crossreferencing among them. The magic of 20/20 hindsight and after the fact editing is what makes it seem "obvious" now.

 

 

 

by "laid out at his feet" I mean that this was easily accesible to him. It was as you say "Scattered in the different agencies". Bush has connections with these agencies, Clues and facts were all around him and his staff...Yet he didnt catch on to anything.

 

WHY?

 

Why didnt he even TRY?

 

Maybe because he was on vacation golfing?

448594[/snapback]

 

Its pretty obvious you really don't understand how pilot ratings and training work and this really hampers your ability to understand this stuff.

 

What Atta was doing would not look markedly different than anyone looking to upgrade to multi-engine, then go for a jet rating in preparation for getting a job as say a jet cargo pilot. The 727 simm lessons he took aren't remarkable at all - the 727 is used very commonly as air cargo plane all over the world because they've become cheap and plentiful. as airlines upgrade their passenger fleets.

 

Your ignorance of how the aviation industry works is really crippling your ability to view this information in a detached analytical manner.

 

Also - the prez himself doesn't go hunting among the various agencies to put together disjoint factoids and rumors into some complete picture of one guy. To say that Bush or even his close staff would have done this themselves is laughable - they don't have enough hours in a day to grope through thousands of reports from several agencies looking for common threads. This is the sort of thing CIA/FBI/NSA are supposed to collect and recognize and present in executive summary.

448772[/snapback]

 

 

Bush KNEW Atta was in the U.S., OVERSTAYING his visa to take FLYING lessons at a time when he KNEW that there was an EXTREMELY HIGH chance of a devestating terrorist attack involving an AIRCRAFT(S).

 

I really dont care what kind of plane Atta was flying or if this is extremely common to upgrade his flying blah blah blah...All that is besides the point...

 

My ignorance in Aviation is overshadowed by your Ignorance of the truth

 

And please...Bush doesnt have enough hours in a day to go through reports from a couple different agencies looking for info. First of all...he has thousands of different people working for him, finding this information out for him and SPOON-FEEDING it to him. But ULTIMATELY President Bush has to make a decision...He didnt. Do I expect him to do it all by himself? No. But there comes a time when he has to be the driving force in making a decision on how to deal with the threats. which he DID NOT.

 

If i remember correctly he was on vacation

Nothing actionable here. There are hundres of "threats" received every week. What differentiates this one (from an administrative priority POV) from others that may have much more specific and actionable information in them?

 

What differentiaties this one, was that it was being brought up, again, and again in mulitple briefings, each time with a higher risk and each time with more information.

 

Actionable - but only good for a deportation hearing that would be appealed. Nothing overtly criminal on US soil was done at this point.

 

As for Atta being a "known terrorist" at this point - that's a highly debatable. Ordinarily anyone on the known terrorist lists doesn't get a visa in the first place.

 

Which administration was it that let him in BTW?...Clinton.

 

Even though the only illegal thing he was doing at the MOMENT, was overstaying his visa...They still had the power to arrest and detain him, until they found out further info.

This was legal even before the Patriot Act

 

FYI - Atta was ALREADY a licenced pilot when he came into this country. Seeking additional instruction on different aircraft types is very common for those looking to upgrade their ratings. In reality, the "lessons" angle has been way overblown as to actual significance...although it certainly plays very well to a public that's ignorant of how pilot licencing/rating system actually works.

 

Don't you think it's kind of fishy that one of the top men on the FBI/CIA watch list is inside the U.S. learning how to Fly an airplane and not land it. During a time where the president is getting daily briefings on how there will be an attack on U.S. soil involving Planes.

 

As far as im concerned it doesnt matter that he was already a licensed pilot. He was obviously "refreshing" his skills for something. And the government should've caught on. As it states in the article Atta stuck out like a sore thumb. and the flight trainers even called him the "little terrorist" behind his back. If the government looked into this at all, and done some research, they could've made a major bust.

 

If all this WAS actually as you say "laid out at the president's feet" you'd have a very solid argument for impeachment because of gross incompetence.

 

The problem of course is that it never was presened in the manner you want us to believe. All of these pieces of information were never put into a specific and individual actionable threat document presented to the president describing Atta and his situation. They were scattered all over the place in different agencies and among different investigators with no real systems in pace for universal crossreferencing among them. The magic of 20/20 hindsight and after the fact editing is what makes it seem "obvious" now.

 

 

 

by "laid out at his feet" I mean that this was easily accesible to him. It was as you say "Scattered in the different agencies". Bush has connections with these agencies, Clues and facts were all around him and his staff...Yet he didnt catch on to anything.

 

WHY?

 

Why didnt he even TRY?

 

Maybe because he was on vacation golfing?

448594[/snapback]

 

Its pretty obvious you really don't understand how pilot ratings and training work and this really hampers your ability to understand this stuff.

 

What Atta was doing would not look markedly different than anyone looking to upgrade to multi-engine, then go for a jet rating in preparation for getting a job as say a jet cargo pilot. The 727 simm lessons he took aren't remarkable at all - the 727 is used very commonly as air cargo plane all over the world because they've become cheap and plentiful. as airlines upgrade their passenger fleets.

 

Your ignorance of how the aviation industry works is really crippling your ability to view this information in a detached analytical manner.

 

Also - the prez himself doesn't go hunting among the various agencies to put together disjoint factoids and rumors into some complete picture of one guy. To say that Bush or even his close staff would have done this themselves is laughable - they don't have enough hours in a day to grope through thousands of reports from several agencies looking for common threads. This is the sort of thing CIA/FBI/NSA are supposed to collect and recognize and present in executive summary.

448772[/snapback]

 

 

Bush KNEW Atta was in the U.S., OVERSTAYING his visa to take FLYING lessons at a time when he KNEW that there was an EXTREMELY HIGH chance of a devestating terrorist attack involving an AIRCRAFT(S).

 

I really dont care what kind of plane Atta was flying or if this is extremely common to upgrade his flying blah blah blah...All that is besides the point...

 

My ignorance in Aviation is overshadowed by your Ignorance of the truth

 

And please...Bush doesnt have enough hours in a day to go through reports from a couple different agencies looking for info. First of all...he has thousands of different people working for him, finding this information out for him and SPOON-FEEDING it to him. But ULTIMATELY President Bush has to make a decision...He didnt. Do I expect him to do it all by himself? No. But there comes a time when he has to be the driving force in making a decision on how to deal with the threats. which he DID NOT.

 

If i remember correctly he was on vacation

448785[/snapback]

 

PWN3D.

 

 

 

Take that Tonyi. Go to your little George Bush Club and cry now.

 

 

Come on, Atta was a known terrorist and was suspected before hand. He was even stopped and detained in an airport when he entered the country because of his visa.

I'm sure Michael Moore knows exactly what Bush knew before 9/11.

I'm Michael Moore knows exactly what Bush knew.

448819[/snapback]

:blink: :blink: :blink:

Come on, Atta was a known terrorist and was suspected before hand. He was even stopped and detained in an airport when he entered the country because of his visa.

448789[/snapback]

 

Enlighten me as to why the Clinton administration let him in then. Inquiring minds want to know...

448956[/snapback]

Tell me why every administration has illegal immigrants and visas. You can't single out Clinton and if you look, Atta was on the confirmed terrorist activities watchlist of the FBI.

Okay, let's be honest with ourselves.

 

1. The government knew 100% nothing about an oncoming attack, as claimed by Dick Cheney on the February 2002 edition of Meet the Press

 

2. Government did know, but did not share information properly and none of this was brought to the president or key members' of the administration's attention.

 

3. Key members of the administration did know, but the evidence was rather incomplete and because any conclusion one can draw would be a totally unprecedented attack, it was not taken as seriously as it should have been.

 

4. Government and the adminstration knew an attack was definately coming and willingly allowed the attacks to occur.

 

 

The truth is between 2 and 3.

Okay, let's be honest with ourselves.

 

1. The government knew 100% nothing about an oncoming attack, as claimed by Dick Cheney on the February 2002 edition of Meet the Press

 

2. Government did know, but did not share information properly and none of this was brought to the president or key members' of the administration's attention.

 

3. Key members of the administration did know, but the evidence was rather incomplete and because any conclusion one can draw would be a totally unprecedented attack, it was not taken as seriously as it should have been.

 

4. Government and the adminstration knew an attack was definately coming and willingly allowed the attacks to occur.

 

 

The truth is between 2 and 3.

450286[/snapback]

I believe its more towards 3. Ok let me say one thing that all of us will agree with (Well I hope all of us):

 

 

 

Politicians suck.

Politicians suck.

450605[/snapback]

 

word.