of these threads. They can spin all they like - he was in charge on 9/11 - he did not keep America safe.

When that gets full and complete coverage, then let's ask Jeb about his brother..to his face with the memo in the question.

There would have been constant hearings and acusations of that Democratic president forever..Over and over we would hear how unsafe the Democratic are and say, "They don't care about the nation's security"...over and over and over...

especially repeating the phrase, "You covered your ass"...It would make the Bengazi hearings look like a "one shot news conference about the Easter Egg Hunt"...The Democratic party itself would be made responsible for that "lack of security" that he fostered ...

For the first time, today...this issue has convinced me Jeb Bush will not be their nominee. Because now that Jeb has doubled down on this, "He kept us safe"...he has opened himself up the the "Bin Laden Memo Question" That is the one thing the pukes in charge do not all the people in the U.S. to know about..for if/when all the people know about it, and it is repeated over and over..that there even existed some a "thing"..well....that could be it....when people realize the truth...

and that is what the puke leadership does not want , at any cost...the truth" Bush was told, and he totally ignored the warning.!!

But it happened on a Republican's watch ... so, they get a pass.

In fact, we got history rewritten ...

in a clip with Bill Maher and some others.

Tried to find it but cannot.

Republicans are simply hypocrites. They would have blamed Gore for it as loudly as they now claim Bush kept us safe.

This would have surfaced in a discovery phase of a civil lawsuit. It would have had an enormous impact on public perception and GWBII would never have served a second term.

If Obama knew that ISIS intended to strike the US, what would he do?

Put marshals on all the airplanes and institute draconian search requirements?

Then if a series of truck bombs went off and wiped out 5 federal buildings, wouldn't he look silly.

So he should also keep people away from federal property.

Then if 5 state capitals were attacked wouldn't he look foolish.

So he should keep people away from capital buildings.

Then what would happen if the attack planned was against the electrical infrastructure?

So in addition he should also harden the electrical grid.

But what if the attack were against hospitals? Or the water system? Or included poison in the food supply system? Take out Internet nodes?

Given "ISIS poised to attack US," with "sensational" yet uncorroborated claims, with attacks on embassies and ships abroad being classed as "attacks on the US" in the past, where, exactly, do you defend? What you need is martial law.

So maybe you invoke truly extraordinary emergency intelligence authority and far surpass the Patriot Act in order to make sure nothing goes unnoticed. Could couriers manage the planning? Snail mail? Sure. So you have to block free transit and check all the mail. Truly, martial law.

Now, let's assume Obama did all of these things based on uncorroborated claims. How long does this state of martial law--that's would it would take--last? A week? But the "poised to attack" had no expiration date. Until there's an attack--or do you just go for a year of martial law based on uncorroborated claims and then claim victory, hoping that they hadn't planned it for a week after martial law expired?

You see the problem. We know what happened and it's easy to project our present knowledge back into the past. That makes the solution easy, quick, simple, and obviously * flopped--what we want to show anyway. But if on 9/10/01 you'd said * should take extraordinary measures against foreign travellers and students, monitor the bank and information systems closely, close airports and put guards on planes and informants all over the place and did all the stuff, even rather narrowly tailored against attack just by *any* plane you'd have been given a piping hot pizza on the spot for supporting * and a really far-reaching attack on civil liberties that involved racial or ethnic profiling. The claim only can work if you know that * knew in August that those specific planes would have those specific targets, and that's something that's really unlikely ... Given the content of the daily briefing that we like to cite.

The sensational claims were uncollaborated. And very, very fuzzy, to the point of being "non-actionable" in any universe that we DUers wouldn't go crazy over. In fact, we'd claim that the cure was worse than the disease, and that AQ would have won by having us go all dictatorship and authoritarian out of paranoia. (Heck, we said that over the Patriot Act, but the Patriot Act fades into the background compared to the measures that would have been required in 8/01 to stop the attacks, unless * had gotten very, very, lucky.)

Last edited Sun Oct 18, 2015, 04:21 PM - Edit history (1)

opted to reject it because he was following an ABC administration: Anything But Clinton.

One of the first mistakes he made was to remove the chief terrorist advisor, Richard Clarke, from the inner circle. He began to serve under Condi Rice, which made no sense because Richard Cheney was calling all the shots on domestic and foreign matters. In that light, our chief terrorist advisor was two times removed from the President.

What system did they reject? The one that had the chief terrorist advisor in direct, daily contact with the oval office. There were daily meetings and reports were given to a president who actually read them and put notes in the margins. That was the "shaking the trees" process. The main thing to remember is that Clinton was reading lengthy reports that were compiled for him, while George Bush couldn't bother to read a dumb-down document that clearly stated that a terrorist was determined to attack American soil. That's how uninvolved he was.

What was Dick Cheney doing at this time? If I recall, he was planning to streamline all matters through the Red Cross.


Reference:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2004/03/dick_clarke_is_telling_the_truth.html

And connect the visa issuing system to the terrorist watch list. Two of the hijackers who got visas - it was almost inexcusable. They were known terrorists. Keep better watch on bin Laden and Al Qaeda. It was bin Laden who was determined to strike.

Pay more attention to the intelligence that came from Germany about the Hamburg cell. They all got visas except one, who was denied because he was a likely economic migrant, not because he was a potential terrorist.

At one point, Atta was admitted to the US on an expired visa. Inexcusable. He could have been kept out on that alone, even if they knew nothing about him. That would have disrupted the entire plan.

that GWB wouldn't appear before the 9/11 commission without Cheney? Trump has opened up an old wound that isn't fully healed....there are dozens of story lines to be discussed -- that should be discussed -- that help provide perspective during the coming election and during this week's sham benghazi hearing.

Someone ask Jeb why his brother couldn't be by himself in front of a special commission

Someone ask Jeb how many foreign post attacks there were under GWB (13 to 20) and how many died (50 to 66)

Someone ask Jeb how may times his special terrorist task force (led by Cheney) met prior to 9/11

Someone ask Jeb how many US soldiers died in Afghanistan and Iraq due to grow mismanagement of those wars

Last edited Sun Oct 18, 2015, 09:18 PM - Edit history (1)

[IMG][/IMG]

Funny how they defend the BFEE and light a flame under Clinton...but yeah, they really are progressive posters here for good reasons wanting honest discussions. Yep, yep.

Rodman produced a report that the bush administration intentionally ignored, and shut down:

http://baltimorechronicle.com/media2_oct01.html

There is no partly to blame about it. The Bush administration is FULLY responsible for ignoring ALL the reports and warnings before 9/11. Sorry Jeb, but that is not keeping the country safe

after he was WARNED! And after, >>> Department of Homeland 'security.'

and he kicked Richard Clarke under the bus! http://www.democracynow.org/2014/6/2/ex_counterterrorism_czar_richard_clarke_bush

each and every one of them is investigated for negligence or even complicity in the 9/11 attacks and subsequent war crimes that are still being committed for our "national security". When that happens, we will be rid of the Bushes and everyone who rode their coattails in the past thirty years. Who will be the prosecutor, the judge, or the politician who will do this?