Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-27-2009, 03:56 AM
 
9,763 posts, read 10,527,281 times
Reputation: 2052

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady View Post
nvx she appears to be saying it's not classified as such officially, and she means to have the accurate classification applied.
Are you talking about Ft. Bragg or 9/11? I'm fairly certain we all agree that 9/11 was a terrorist attack.
Quote:
The context of this blurb was edited out on both ends.
Do you have a link to the unedited version.

Myself, I don't get worked up over classifications. My opinion on tragic events such as that at Ft. Bragg are formed independently of official terms. They could call it a bad hair day and it wouldn't effect my opinion at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-27-2009, 05:25 AM
 
1,025 posts, read 1,752,780 times
Reputation: 965
Talk about memory lapse... The more I see things like this, the tea partys and Palin book signing along with all the crazy post from neocons up here, I'm beginning to think Janean Garofalo's theory of the over-sized limbic brain of a right winger is true, lol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2009, 06:39 AM
 
Location: Austin
1,476 posts, read 1,776,222 times
Reputation: 435
They talking about Bush senior. Under Bush junior we had 9/11, the DC Sniper, and the Anthrax letters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2009, 12:17 PM
 
Location: Earth
24,620 posts, read 28,282,339 times
Reputation: 11416
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer View Post
Are you talking about Ft. Bragg or 9/11? I'm fairly certain we all agree that 9/11 was a terrorist attack.
Um, no, I certainly don't believe so; nor have I heard the US government thinks so either. Where are you getting this information?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2009, 12:24 PM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,483,709 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer View Post
Are you talking about Ft. Bragg or 9/11? I'm fairly certain we all agree that 9/11 was a terrorist attack.

Do you have a link to the unedited version.

Myself, I don't get worked up over classifications. My opinion on tragic events such as that at Ft. Bragg are formed independently of official terms. They could call it a bad hair day and it wouldn't effect my opinion at all.


nevada,,

do you mean Ft. Hood???

or did something happen at Bragg , that I dont remember
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2009, 12:28 PM
 
Location: On Top
12,373 posts, read 13,194,417 times
Reputation: 4027
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcsldcd View Post
You people don't think 911 was planned overnight do you? It was planned well ahead under Clinton.
Is that right? Why didn't inept Bush/Cheney doing something to stop it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2009, 12:35 PM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,483,709 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by meson View Post
Is that right? Why didn't inept Bush/Cheney doing something to stop it?
In August 2002 Richard A. Clarke, former chief counter-terrorism adviser, discusses US strategy in dealing with islamic terrorists:

RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.
Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office -- issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.
And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.
The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies -- and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.

Over the course of the summer -- last point -- they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.

And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.

QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the -- general animus against the foreign policy?

CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against, uh, the previous team to me.

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct.

ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no -- one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?

CLARKE: You got it. That's right.

Richard A. Clarke
Former chief counter-terrorism adviser
August, 2002

------------

you were grovelling
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2009, 12:37 PM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,419 posts, read 20,306,967 times
Reputation: 8958
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl View Post
There are already other threads on this topic.
So, who was president on 9/11?

Duh.
I'm sure she meant since 9/11.

Duh.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2009, 12:42 PM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,419 posts, read 20,306,967 times
Reputation: 8958
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcsldcd View Post
You people don't think 911 was planned overnight do you? It was planned well ahead under Clinton.
Well, that's a good point, and we do know that it's true. In fact it was Clinton who had intelligence that they were planning to use commercial aircraft to fly into buildings. Nothing was done to beef up security, however.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2009, 12:46 PM
 
1,317 posts, read 1,399,073 times
Reputation: 286
What surprises me, and none of you have caught it, is Hannity didn't catch it. As it is, I'm thinking it was a simple slip. TV interviews can be intimidating, at least. Especially when you consider how Hannity and O'Riely conduct their interviews (interrogations).

Non issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top