US Had Warning of 9/11

[LongBlade]

The limited amount of info I've run across had convinced me that the overreaction of Bush II to 9/11 by spending trillions of dollars on new domestic spy agencies and suspending the 4th amendment were wrong.

Now more info is starting to surface indicating that we didn't need to go that far.

On May 1, the CIA told the White House that there was "a group presently in the United States" that was planning an attack. On June 22, a daily briefing described the attack as "imminent." Administration officials, however, dismissed the warnings, saying that Osama bin Laden was merely feigning an attack to distract the U.S. from efforts against Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/report-documents-disclose-9-11-warnings-081156564--politics.html

[Keunert]

and Action Jack is whining about the other president that actually got Osama killed, for skipping intelligence meetings.
how do you feel about Bush in hindsight? on this and on economics?

[Bison]

I feel pretty good about Bush in hindsight.  Thanks for your concern.

[LongBlade]

and Action Jack is whining about the other president that actually got Osama killed, for skipping intelligence meetings.
how do you feel about Bush in hindsight? on this and on economics?

Mixed feelings.

We have to lay a portion of the deficit at his feet.

We also have to blame him at least partly for not trying to stop the housing crisis meltdown. He apparently did offer some weak legislation in 2003, but Congress turned it down. He never brought up the subject again.

I'm quite unhappy with the Patriot Act. The more we learn about it the less necessary it it obviously is.

However, Bush brought the hurt to the Taliban and Al Qaeda and that is significant. Say what you will about Iraq, we killed a lot of bad guys there, too. I still consider Iraq a net positive - or did until we surrendered the country last year. Given the complete withdrawal of even a token force it simply becomes a waste of blood and treasure. Why we would give that up for nothing is a mystery I doubt I'll ever understand.

So Bush II is a mixed bag. Better than what we have now, but certainly he has a blemished record.

[OJsDad]

The limited amount of info I've run across had convinced me that the overreaction of Bush II to 9/11 by spending trillions of dollars on new domestic spy agencies and suspending the 4th amendment were wrong.

Now more info is starting to surface indicating that we didn't need to go that far.

On May 1, the CIA told the White House that there was "a group presently in the United States" that was planning an attack. On June 22, a daily briefing described the attack as "imminent." Administration officials, however, dismissed the warnings, saying that Osama bin Laden was merely feigning an attack to distract the U.S. from efforts against Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/report-documents-disclose-9-11-warnings-081156564--politics.html

I'm not defending anyone on this, but if you were told on 22 June that bin Laden would pull off 9/11, how likely at that time would have been to believe it.  I think the same can be said about the warnings that FDR had about Pearly Harbor.  I suspect that there was a bit of discussion on both subjects prior to the attacks, but we may not know exactly who said what or what their tone was when they said.  If someone tells  you something and they don't sound like they believe it, then you're less likely to believe it yourself.

[OJsDad]

and Action Jack is whining about the other president that actually got Osama killed, for skipping intelligence meetings.
how do you feel about Bush in hindsight? on this and on economics?

Mixed feelings.

We have to lay a portion of the deficit at his feet.

We also have to blame him at least partly for not trying to stop the housing crisis meltdown. He apparently did offer some weak legislation in 2003, but Congress turned it down. He never brought up the subject again.

I'm quite unhappy with the Patriot Act. The more we learn about it the less necessary it it obviously is.

However, Bush brought the hurt to the Taliban and Al Qaeda and that is significant. Say what you will about Iraq, we killed a lot of bad guys there, too. I still consider Iraq a net positive - or did until we surrendered the country last year. Given the complete withdrawal of even a token force it simply becomes a waste of blood and treasure. Why we would give that up for nothing is a mystery I doubt I'll ever understand.

So Bush II is a mixed bag. Better than what we have now, but certainly he has a blemished record.

Don't forget Medicare Part D.

On the housing crisis, didn't Airboy say that there were several attemps by the Bush administration to get that fixed but congress wouldn't help

[LongBlade]

The limited amount of info I've run across had convinced me that the overreaction of Bush II to 9/11 by spending trillions of dollars on new domestic spy agencies and suspending the 4th amendment were wrong.

Now more info is starting to surface indicating that we didn't need to go that far.

On May 1, the CIA told the White House that there was "a group presently in the United States" that was planning an attack. On June 22, a daily briefing described the attack as "imminent." Administration officials, however, dismissed the warnings, saying that Osama bin Laden was merely feigning an attack to distract the U.S. from efforts against Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/report-documents-disclose-9-11-warnings-081156564--politics.html

I'm not defending anyone on this, but if you were told on 22 June that bin Laden would pull off 9/11, how likely at that time would have been to believe it.  I think the same can be said about the warnings that FDR had about Pearly Harbor.  I suspect that there was a bit of discussion on both subjects prior to the attacks, but we may not know exactly who said what or what their tone was when they said.  If someone tells  you something and they don't sound like they believe it, then you're less likely to believe it yourself.

Actually, you have a point, and it agrees with mine.

In the reading on the topic I've come across it has become apparent that we already had all the tools we needed to bust those guys. But on Sept 10 the FBI's top priority was looking into campaign contributions by the Chinese.

So it comes to pass that the Patriot Act and the uncountable domestic spy agencies, and DHS are unnecessary. We certainly should not be spending ourselves broke chasing bad guys when some modest improvements on an already solid system on 9/10 would suffice.

I point this out less to bash Bush II (though he deserves some criticism that he has thus far publicly avoided) than to simply say that part of our overspending problem can be laid at Bush II's feet along with the unconstitutional agencies and policies he enacted.

I'm not looking to just bash his reptuation - I'm looking for a solution to our overspending problems and a return to rule by law under our Constitution. I seem them as intertwined, and what is important isn't finding reasons to criticize Bush II, it is to spread the knowledge that we can successfully defend ourselves and still have our Constitution and not go broke. That's a pretty happy message if you ask me.

[LongBlade]

Don't forget Medicare Part D.

Good point.

On the housing crisis, didn't Airboy say that there were several attemps by the Bush administration to get that fixed but congress wouldn't help

I was aware of one, but there could have been more. The problem isn't so much that he tried and failed as it is that the American public never got the message that it could be a potentially catastrophic problem. He does own that failure to communicate.

[Bison]

Barney Frank stopped any movement to put sanity into Freddy and Fannies lending practices.  We can certainly put it at the foot of Bush because it was during his tenure.  However also lets not forget that he "inhereted" the dotcom bubble collapse (which he never bitched about ) and then 9/11 and yet around 6 years of his Presidency we had a pretty stable and growing economy.

[OJsDad]

I'm not looking to just bash his reptuation - I'm looking for a solution to our overspending problems and a return to rule by law under our Constitution. I seem them as intertwined, and what is important isn't finding reasons to criticize Bush II, it is to spread the knowledge that we can successfully defend ourselves and still have our Constitution and not go broke. That's a pretty happy message if you ask me.

My opinion is that they are one and the same.  Look at three of our six largest budget items at the federal level, Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security and Income Security.  These three are over $1.9T.  If those three didn't exist, then there would be no deficit spending, and a very nice surplus to pay down the debt, thus eliminate our fifth largest budget item, interest on the debt.  How much time does congress spend on these three items, instead of spending time being part of the check and balance system to make sure our rights are protected.  You cannot getrid of those three problems, or many others, overnight.  It will take decades to unwind from them. 

However, at this time, no one seems to want to getrid of them (yes, I have an idea).  These are domestic programs that belong to the States and local governments, along with many others.  Do we really need an agency that fines small businesses for not having their employees wear safety gear while replacing a roof.  No, that is a local or State issue.  If the federal government wants to provide safety information and guidance, that is fine, but they should not be enforcing.

If the federal government is spendig trillions a year on taking care of people, then they cannot be taking away our right, can they. 

[MIGMaster]

The biggest problem with the Bush presidency was that Dick Cheney was the President. The guy was pure evil - as Ozzy might say he was war pig. If you ever get a chance to read a book called The Generals about the first Gulf War..by Gordon & Trainor...or something close to that...excellent read...gives some great insight into Cheney.

[Gusington]

Cheney was 'The Emperor' to Bush's 'Darth Vader', or so the common belief goes.

[LongBlade]

Barney Frank stopped any movement to put sanity into Freddy and Fannies lending practices.  We can certainly put it at the foot of Bush because it was during his tenure.  However also lets not forget that he "inhereted" the dotcom bubble collapse (which he never bitched about ) and then 9/11 and yet around 6 years of his Presidency we had a pretty stable and growing economy.

Good point.

[Bison]

Cheney was 'The Emperor' to Bush's 'Darth Vader', or so the common belief goes.

The biggest problem with the Bush presidency was that Dick Cheney was the President. The guy was pure evil - as Ozzy might say he was war pig. If you ever get a chance to read a book called The Generals about the first Gulf War..by Gordon & Trainor...or something close to that...excellent read...gives some great insight into Cheney.

I don't by that for a second.  Sure he had influence, but Bush isn't the village idiot the media has tried to portray him as either.  How quickly we forget the spine and resolve he showed immediatly after 9/11 and during the political war waged against him and the Iraq conflict during the 2004 election. 

There are several things I didn't like in terms of domestic policy that come about during the Bush administration, but never forget he sought and got Congressional approval for his policies.   Right or wrong can be debated, but never that the actions were a made unilaterally by a single individual or party.

[LongBlade]

I don't have much of an opinion of Cheney, one way or the other. Bush II was the boss. Cheney may have had some good ideas or some bad ones. Doesn't matter. Bush II made the calls, and as a leader was supposed to surround himself with advisers. Cheney was just another adviser IMHO. Maybe had more weight than some, but he wasn't a puppetmaster.