Why the Aug. 6 PDB AND Condoleezza were both accurate

When Condi said that the Administration didn't have any specific information or prior warnings about terrorists hijacking planes & using them as missiles to strike buildings with, I believe she was telling the truth. Why?

Simple. There's no evidence that terrorists did that. Besides, none of the prior "terrorist" attacks that have been attributed to bin Laden's organization involved the use of suicide bombers. The text of the Aug. 6 PDB mentions past acts of "terrorism" (some of which were alleged to be directly tied to bin Laden's organization), but none of the terrorist acts involved the use of suicide bombers.

Since what WAS in the text of the Aug. 6 PDB did NOT include attacks involving the use of suicide bombers, then Condi is absolved because she was being truthful when she expressed surprise that such a thing happened.

The 1993 WTC bombings didn't include suicide bombers, neither did the U.S. Embassy attacks.

Using suicide bombers just don't seem to be a bin Laden strategy.

Conclusion: Condoleezza Rice AND the Aug. 6 PDB were accurate and truthful. Ms. Rice's statements/testimony and the text of the PDB both give powerful support to the notion that 9-11 was a MIHOP operation, not a suicide mission by bin Laden's group.

as was 9-11...

:silly:


I should also point out that the foiled Genoa G8 attack would've involved a hijacked plane w/suicide pilot

crash a vehicle into something vs crash a vehicle into something...I see your point..or not...

:silly:

that wouldn't not have been criticized by their political opponents?

cockpit doors: costing the airlines too much money!!
tighten borders: racism!!
Afghanistan and tighter searches of Arab males boarding planes: you're kidding, right?

considering how much the LEFT was looking at terrorism, and coming up with ways to deal with it, I doubt there would've been too much grief about Bush following through with Dem plans

that would not have been criticized by the Dems, ...I'll grant the possible exception of cockpit doors, but even that would have been difficult...

And how much has Dem criticism kept Dubya from doing what he wants?

All of this 'I would have been criticized' is just so much bunk.

Investigating known agents and their activities. A clue: having a bunch of them go to flight school, and some say they didn't need to learn how to land the plane -- now that just might be a hint about something.

Keeping the Air Force on alert, and the ability to respond in the hands of local officers -- as opposed to what Rummy did, requiring that any actions against hijacked airliners first be authorized by him.

Even if the thought was that hijackings were to be 'ordinary,' for hostages, warnings could have been issued that the threat level was high.

It would mean that the actual planners and executors of the attack (the Bush Adminstration, unless you have another government in mind) are continually teasing us with these sly little lies.

What I see is someone desperately covering her ass because the worst terrorist act in history happened while she and her fellow Administrationists were downplaying terrorism as "oh, so Clinton". They f*cked it up, and they're doing their damnedest to keep the American public to see how badly they f*cked it up.

Try that again. Are YOU now suggesting some form of LIHOP?

What "sly little lies" are you talking about?

There was no "plan" to use suicide bombers on 9-11; indeed none WERE used. The intelligence reports don't talk about planes being flown on suicide missions. Hijackings? Yes. Attacks? Yes. Suicide missions? NO.

Al Qaida has used suicide bombers, had trained them. The U.S. had long had info that Islamic terrorists planned to fly airplanes into buildings. Tom Clancey wrote a thriller in 1999 ('Executive Orders') that involved a n airliner being flown into the US Capitol during a presidential address. There were indications that Al Qaida planned to hijack airliners, that suspected Al Qaida members had taken flying lessons, and that some had said they didn't need to learn how to land.

LIHOP/MIHOP is a fantasy. Yes, it COULD be true, although it's unlikely -- too imaginative and dangerous for the Bushistas. More important, it is an unnecessary interpretation: it is easy to see how incompetence and ideological blindness closed the Bushistas off from taking terrorist threats seriously until they had their noses rubbed in 911 -- then, once they climbed out of their hidey holes, they figured, accurately, that they could make something out of it. And they did. They were asleep at the switch, hid while the train wrecked, then made a big deal out of their 'resolute' response to the disaster. I don't need MIHOP/LIHOP to tell me that they are to be blamed for the success of the Al Qaida operation. Dubya claimed last night that only OBL was at fault. No, when a burglar gets past a security guard and through doors that should have been locked but weren't, the security guard is at fault, just as the burglar is guilty of the crime.

In fact, the reason the US was able to quickly figure out who did it was because one of the suicide bombers got chicken and jumped out of the car literally at the last second. Then he was caught soon after.

I'm not aware of any proof that the embassy attacks were a bin Laden operation. And btw- what nationality was the one you say jumped out at the last second? The fact that he jumped suggests that the desire to be a suicide bom ber is more a Palestinian "thing" than a bin Laden thing.
In other words, even if your point is accurate (that the embassy attackers were definitely acting on bin Laden orders) - it doesn't exactly give strength to the notion of suicide bombing as being a refined strategy in bin Laden's book.

once they found out that the Kenyans had caught him and a few of his buddies and were holding them in prison?

You left out the best part Paul.