So Bush ignored the message "Bin Laden determined to attack", Does it really matter??

[RepublicansRZombies]

If Bush were paying attention, what would he have done exactly?

Ordered NORAD and the FAA to do their jobs?

It is not the president's job to 'protect the nation', that is the job of our military who have the greatest equipment and technology on earth.

WE spend more on our military than all other nations combined.

Who here thinks there was no plan in place to protect the nation in the case of a plane veering off course, shutting off a transponder, and eventually an obvious hijacking?

Why did it take over an hour to protect the pentagon with Andrew's Airforce base 10 miles away?

How is it possible that Rumsfeld had no idea the nation was under attack until a plane hit the pentagon over and hour after the WTC?

There is a common excuse that the transponders were shut off? Does the enemy usually notify their victims of an attack by leaving their transponder on?

No, that is why we have RADAR!

Rumsfeld was asked about RADAR during the 9/11 commission, he said the problem was that we were 'looking outward'. Seriously.


This whole 'Bush didn't do anything' is a distraction. Bush didn't have to do anything.

If NORAD and the FAA followed standard procedure, which is to send interceptors in the air within 5 minutes of a plane veering off course or shutting off a transponder....the very first attack on the WTC could have and should have been prevented, as well as all the subsequent attacks.

[The Link]

1. It matters to me.

[RepublicansRZombies]

9. okay I know he's a moron and it 'matters'

But thankfully the military does not wait for a moronic president to make the call during a hijacking

[Ganja Ninja]

2. .

[RepublicansRZombies]

7. what would Bush have done?

seriously?

You think the military is waiting around for the president to act during a hijacking?

[Ganja Ninja]

29. He might have acted before the hijacking to increase security for starters.

A responsible thinking president would have increased surveillance, tightened pre-flight inspections, alerted customs, had the FBI cross check passenger's tickets with suspect names, put air marshals in the cockpits of some planes and in general gone on a state of elevated alert. Not Bush, he did nothing, nothing at all! Worst president ever!

[Booster]

37. But, but, but he was on vacation clearing brush from the pig farm. Everybody knows when you're on

vacation you don't work.

[RepublicansRZombies]

45. ALL GOOD POINTS!

Man, you should have been president!


But my point is that he didn't even need to do any of that.

Standard procedure would have had those planes intercepted in plenty of time.

Why wasn't standard procedure followed?


Now that we know what we know about the corporate media, is it that far fetched they would lie to US??

[jberryhill]

47. In other words - he should have instituted the TSA measures everyone hates?

[pnwmom]

62. One of the terrorists in Boston was actually detained for a while, because a screener

had concerns. If we had been in a state of high alert, it's likely that screener wouldn't have let him on board and an investigation would have been instigated. We'll never know what could have happened next, but it's very possible that plane would not have been allowed to take off.

[jberryhill]

66. What would the words "high alert" done?

[pnwmom]

137. If the words led to more cautious behavior on the part of the screeners

that man would not have been allowed to board. The screener himself said so after 911. He was very frustrated because his instincts to hold the man had been correct -- and if there had been a terror alert he would have kept him.

[jberryhill]

139. Detain him for what?

How long should he have detained him, and what should have been done in that time?

Just lock the guy up because he sets off someone's spidey sense?

Or refuse to let him board his plane for what reason?

[pnwmom]

145. I don't remember the details, but there was something that caused him to be

detained, and the screener said he wouldn't have released him if there had been an alert.

And that was only one instance. It's hard for me to understand how someone could make a serious argument, given all that we know now, that Bush putting the FAA on alert couldn't have led to a better outcome.

Here's another article on Bush ignoring many warnings. How could any President ignore warnings of a "spectacular" attack?

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/11/13809524-evidence-piles-up-that-bush-administration-got-many-pre-9-11-warnings?lite

There were more details, as laid out by one of Tenet’s top analysts, known in the book as “Rich B.” Tenet recounts his aide telling Rice and others, “The attack will be ‘spectacular.’ and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities and interests. ‘Attack preparations have been made,’ he said. ‘Multiple and simultaneous attacks are possible, and they will occur with little or no warning. Al-Qaida is waiting us out and looking for vulnerability.”

SNIP

"Would action by the White House have helped? Like Eichenwald, Cressey says he isn’t sure, but notes that when similar intelligence pointed to attacks on Jan. 1, 2000, “Sandy Berger (Rice’s predecessor) and (President Bill) Clinton went to battle stations.” Did warnings prior to the millennium help thwart a number of attacks back then? Cressey believes they did."

[jberryhill]

147. The general sentiment on DU

Is that heightened airport security procedures are ineffective and unwarranted.

[pnwmom]

150. That doesn't mean that heightened measures during a period of time

when they were getting more and more urgent warnings of an imminent attack -- even an attack involving airplanes -- wouldn't have helped increase security. It also doesn't mean that when they knew about threats and knew the names of some of the terrorists -- and were actively trying to find them -- it wouldn't have helped if they'd passed those specific names on to the airport screeners.

And why didn't they at least start the airlines on securing the doors to the pilot's area? It's not as if they'd never had a hijacking, and not as if they didn't know that an attack might involve airplanes.

[Ganja Ninja]

69. Exactly.

Had something been done the plot may have never happened, but nothing was done, not one fucking thing.

[Bluenorthwest]

3. The President of the US is the top of the military chain of command.

So this-"It is not the president's job to 'protect the nation', that is the job of our military" - is a ludicrous statement.

[RepublicansRZombies]

5. there was already a plan in place

he didn't have to do anything

[Bluenorthwest]

20. That's just a stupid statement. Sorry, I can't pull punches. Commander of the military.

He did do somethings. He got out of DC, Ashcroft stopped flying commercial...
All in all, Bush presided over the single largest failure of the American security apparatus of all time. Deal with it. He was in charge on the day our enemies killed thousands right here at home. In charge, but of course also on vacation...

[RepublicansRZombies]

28. Can someone in the military please respond to this?

Do people really think Bush was commanding the military? LOL!!

[HughBeaumont]

55. What does the term "Com-Man-Der In Chief" MEAN, then?

This free pass you're giving him is illogical. Seen the article by Kurt Eichenwald? It wasn't JUST August 6th he ignored.

[RepublicansRZombies]

58. Which part of STANDARD PROCEDURE for hijackings do people not understand

The military has a standard procedure they follow during a hijacking that does not need permission from the president.

[Corgigal]

95. like hell they do

I was part of the military (at a Norad base) and a former Air Traffic Controller.

Hijackings are under FAA at first, then relayed to other law enforcement area. This was never a damn hijack, this was a terrorist attack. The Hijack scenario was put in place to keep passengers from fighting because they thought it would play itself out that way.

Good Lord, why do you have to play this crap today, of all days?



http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

[RepublicansRZombies]

99. it was a hijacking before it hit the towers, why wasn't NORAD sent to intercept?

It it were a 'terrorist attack', that doesn't explain why they wouldn't respond.

Why wasn't Rumsfeld told after the planes hit the towers?

He didn't know anything happened until a plane hit the pentagon over an hour later.

Doesn't that seem strange to you?

If it were a terrorist attack, wouldn't they protect the pentagon and perhaps tell Rumsfeld?

[Corgigal]

123. read the damn link

then read 7110.65 hijacking.

Norad doesn't just respond to anything, the President being the Command in Chief and NORAD being in the military , it would be Bush who should be in charge. NORAD isn't set up for inside the U.S.A. it was set up doing the cold war for incomming , not over U.S. airspace.

Detection was accomplished with an ever-growing series of radar installations stretching across Canada. If you look at a globe from directly above, you can see that the shortest path between the United States and Russia is through the Arctic, placing Canada directly between the two Cold-Warring nations. NORAD's "radar fence" was meant to act as a first line of defense, giving as much advance warning as possible when attack planes or missiles were launched toward the United States or Canada. This would provide time to react (with retaliatory missiles) and possibly affect some form of evacuation or allow civilians to reach bomb
shelters

FAA Procedures

10−2−5. EMERGENCY SITUATIONS
Consider that an aircraft emergency exists and inform
the RCC or ARTCC and alert the appropriate DF
facility when any of the following exist:
NOTE−
1. USAF facilities are only required to notify the ARTCC.
2. The requirement to alert DF facilities may be deleted if
radar contact will be maintained throughout the duration
of the emergency.
a. An emergency is declared by either:
1. The pilot.
7/26/12 JO 7110.65U CHG 1
JO 7110.65U 2/9/12
10−2−2 Emergency Assistance
2. Facility personnel.
3. Officials responsible for the operation of the
aircraft.
b. There is unexpected loss of radar contact and
radio communications with any IFR or VFR aircraft.
c. Reports indicate it has made a forced landing, is
about to do so, or its operating efficiency is so
impaired that a forced landing will be necessary.
d. Reports indicate the crew has abandoned the
aircraft or is about to do so.
e. An emergency transponder code is displayed or
reported.
NOTE−
EN ROUTE. During Stage A operation, Code 7700 causes
EMRG to blink in field E of the data block.
f. Intercept or escort aircraft services are required.
g. The need for ground rescue appears likely.
h. An Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT)
signal is heard or reported.
REFERENCE−
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 10−1−3 , Providing Assistance.
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 10−2−10 , Emergency Locator Transmitter
(ELT) Signals.
10−2−6. HIJACKED AIRCRAFT
Hijack attempts or actual events are a matter of
national security and require special handling. Policy
and procedures for hijack situations are detailed in
FAAO JO 7610.4, Special Operations. FAAO
JO 7610.4 describes reporting requirements, air crew
procedures, air traffic procedures and escort or
interceptor procedures for hijack situations.
REFERENCE−
FAAO JO 7610.4, Chapter 7, Hijacked/Suspicious Aircraft Reporting
and Procedures.
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 5−2−13 , Code Monitor

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/CHG1JO7110.65U.pdf

[treestar]

108. On the day itself, they couldn't have known it was not more than a hijacking

well, unless they thought hijacking might be part of a terrorist attack.

[Corgigal]

124. and its called a intercept

Interception Procedures
a. General
1. Identification intercepts during peacetime operations are vastly different than those conducted
under increased states of readiness. Unless otherwise directed by the control agency, intercepted
aircraft will be identified by type only. When specific information is required (i.e. markings, serial
numbers, etc.) the interceptor aircrew will respond only if the request can be conducted in a safe
manner. During hours of darkness or Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC), identification
of unknown aircraft will be by type only. The interception pattern described below is the typical
peacetime method used by air interceptor aircrews. In all situations, the interceptor aircrew will
use caution to avoid startling the intercepted aircrew and/or passengers


http://amd.nbc.gov/dts/tsdocs/InterceptionProcedures.pdf

[RepublicansRZombies]

68. 'free pass'? What I am accusing him of is far worse.

I think Cheney was really in charge though, and chimp is the chump taking the heat.

[HughBeaumont]

88. The entire upper echelon of the Bush administration should be in the Hague.

They are, after all, war criminals.

[RepublicansRZombies]

94. yes, instead they are writing books and doing the corporate media talk shows

and people still trust the corporate media with the official story?

[RepublicansRZombies]

30. What is the president is somehow unable to be contacted

The military waits for his command and will not respond to a hijacking?

Even after two planes hit the towers, they would not respond and prevent a hit on the pentagon?

[Ganja Ninja]

51. He's suppose to act before the hijacking.

Does that make any sense at all to you? There a number of things he can do when he has warning of an impending hijacking. Name one thing that he did do.

[RepublicansRZombies]

56. Did the military wait for the President's order to intercept Payne Stewart's plane?

??

[Ganja Ninja]

65. What the fuck are you talking about?

What does that have to do with Dubya failing to take precautions before 9/11? This is just getting silly.

[RepublicansRZombies]

70. Did you read my post? I explained it....

Everyone is focused on Bush's incompetence, which is a cop out. This is more than incompetence.

[cindyperry2010]

32. thank you

[indepat]

60. And some charitably attribute all this to incompetence

[RepublicansRZombies]

79. yes, the incompetence excuse is protecting the Bush Administration

and people think I am defending Bush?

[ProSense]

81. Your logic is flawed

"yes, the incompetence excuse is protecting the Bush Administration and people think I am defending Bush?"

You're claiming that Bush could have been the most incompetent "moron," that he could have "completely ignored any and all warnings" because the military should have acted. You then claim Bush isn't responsible of commanding the military.

You are attempting to absolve Bush of any responsibility.

[RepublicansRZombies]

87. If you think I am defending Bush, your reading comprehension is flawed.

This was more than incompetence, how is that excusing Bush of responsibility?

[ProSense]

98. You know what

"If you think I am defending Bush, your reading comprehension is flawed. This was more than incompetence, how is that excusing Bush of responsibility?"

...you really need to take a look at your own argument. Again, let me summarize:

You're claiming that Bush could have been the most incompetent "moron," that he could have "completely ignored any and all warnings" because the military should have acted. You then claim Bush isn't responsible of commanding the military.

You may think you're making the argument that this was intentiional, but everything you've stated is absolves Bush of any responsibility.

[RepublicansRZombies]

101. suggesting NORAD would have responded to this emergency if the Bushco had not interfered

He did not need to do anything to get NORAD to act, they had to do something to stop NORAD from acting.

[ProSense]

109. Well,

"He did not need to do anything to get NORAD to act, they had to do something to stop NORAD from acting."

...that refutes the "moron" claim. I mean, you're trying to argue that Bush did this intentionally, likely that this was an act of evil, by arguing that he "didn't have to do anything." Now you're saying he did something: ignored the appropriate response.

That does not support the title of your OP, nor the point that "This whole 'Bush didn't do anything' is a distraction. Bush didn't have to do anything."

You see, your argument is basically that Bush intentionally did something he shouldn't have. You're just trying to prove one CT.

He ignored the PDB.

Whatever conspiracy theories one can drum up from that, it all amounts to the fact that Bush's actions failed the country.

[indepat]

132. Assuming you are correct, would it be fair to conclude that those who voted for junior's

re-election and those who now support RMoney and Rayn are o.k. with that failure?

[TrogL]

4. If we can confirm how those procedures were countermanded, we have the key to LIHOP

If we can prove that the attackers knew they were going to be off, we have MIHOP.

[RepublicansRZombies]

11. yes

and the fact that Cheney took over control of NORAD should give us a clue....

[TBF]

71. You got it -

but people have decided to buy the official story.

[RepublicansRZombies]

77. from the same bullshit corporate media that lied to our faces to start a war in Iraq

why would anyone believe the official story from the corporate media?

[TBF]

80. I do think most people are generally good

and want to believe what they are told by their leaders. Unfortunately that works against them in this case. I don't know how long they'll let you keep posting (these kinds of posts used to get moved pretty quickly on DU2) but rest assured you are not alone in your analysis.

[RepublicansRZombies]

86. What we know now about the corporate media- they lie about anything and everything!

Why would people so blindly believe the Bush/corporate media official story.

People were just so scared, and want to believe what they are told...I guess you are right.

But when they hid building 7 from us, how the hell did that fall like a controlled demolition from a few small fires.

I know people don't want to believe it is really this bad, but it is really this bad!!

It is so obvious to me, but after their reaction, after using it to install a police state and attack innocent nations...it should have raised a few red flags...

[TBF]

92. Well they believe everything else so I don't

find it so surprising.

Folks believe (and even romanticize) the "founding" of this country (European land grab), spreading "freedom" worldwide (Mideast Oil grab) etc ... it's all about money all of the time. In this case they wanted to attack Iraq so they created their new Pearl Harbor. Conveniently folks also focused on "terra" rather than noticing what was going on with the banks (more $$$ grabbing from a certain crew). Not that they'll stop with a little land, money, oil, and retirement funds - if you look at the PNAC info (and I'm sure you have) there are all kinds of plans. These MF's are crazy.

[RepublicansRZombies]

96. yes, they are so arrogant they put their PNAC plans on the web for all to see

and just trusted we were all too stupid or scared to see what was so obvious

but now, 11 years later, we know what they are capable of. WE saw what they used the attack for. WE know what they media will do to lie for these greedy murdering bastards. We know they want all of the money ALL of it, and ultimate power over everyone....why is this so hard to see now?

[Autumn]

6. Ask the ones who died. That should give you an answer. n/t

[RepublicansRZombies]

10. It was not required that Bush know or do anything on 9/11

The military is a lot smarter than that!

[Autumn]

44. Funny, I had always been told that the President IS the Commander in Chief of the military.

One Fact that can NOT be overlooked, 9/11 happened on his watch. He had the warnings, he did nothing. Well, he did learn all about a goat.

[RepublicansRZombies]

52. It was more than his fault, THEY DID IT ON PURPOSE

Strange the first time in history the VP takes control of NORAD and they fail to follow standard procedure for hijackings.

[NJRick1006]

8. He shouldn't have been President

I always say that if Al Gore had been righfully elected President, 9/11 would not have happened. Perhaps some much less severe attacks could have occured, but President Gore would never have ignored the warnings given by his National Security Team (and Richard Clarke).

[RepublicansRZombies]

13. Al Gore could have even ignored the warnings and did nothing

The FAA still would have notified NORAD within 5 minutes of the transponder being shut off and planes veering off course (which is easily seen on RADAR)

and they would have intercepted the planes before they hit the WTC.

[CherokeeDem]

12. By your logic....

if it is the military's job to protect us and the President is Commander-in-chief of the military...then it is his job.

Could Bush have prevented the attack? We may never know...but he should have tried.

[RepublicansRZombies]

16. he could have told them to be on 'high alert' or whatever

But Payne Stewart's plane was intercepted with standard procedure, why weren't the planes on 9/11?

[CherokeeDem]

72. A question you should ask the Bush Administration. nt

[patrice]

14. While I don't think that Bush is insignificant, I have for some time thought that your main point is

at least as, if not WAY MORE, important than what the President did:

If NORAD and the FAA followed standard procedure, which is to send interceptors in the air within 5 minutes of a plane veering off course or shutting off a transponder....the very first attack on the WTC could have and should have been prevented, as well as all the subsequent attacks.

I'm wondering just now if Lawrence Wright has ever commented on this aspect of 9/11.

[RepublicansRZombies]

18. Oh my God THANK YOU!

Someone read my post!!!!

[patrice]

26. Sorry I can't remember the titles of the books I read about this several years ago, but

that point:

If NORAD and the FAA followed standard procedure, which is to send interceptors in the air within 5 minutes of a plane veering off course or shutting off a transponder....the very first attack on the WTC could have and should have been prevented, as well as all the subsequent attacks.

really stayed with me.

Did the Congressional "investigation" ask significant questions along those lines?

[Voice for Peace]

115. I did read it -- but it was kind of confusing, so I understand why others were confused.

(this isn't meant as a criticism of the content, or you, but
an opportunity to work on your writing skills. Make sure the
point you want to make is right there, front and center.
Start and finish with it. End of composition advice.

edit for caveat: my own writing is really sloppy a lot of the
time. But usually I find if more than one person is misunderstanding
me, it's my writing, not their comprehension.)

I agree it's one of the most important issues. I don't think Bush
was even informed, frankly, of what Cheney was doing. Just
given basic information, told what to say, and reassured by all
around him.

It all points to Cheney, obviously, & his fiendish friends.

My other nagging question has to do with the buildings coming
down as they did. After watching the films interviewing countless
engineers architects et alia -- I've heard no satisfactory rebuttal
or explanation. Yet even many who challenge a great deal of the
official story, consider controlled demolition as nutty conspiracy.

[RoccoR5955]

73. They were going to, but Cheney, who was in command

of them at the time, told them to stand down.

[patrice]

116. I read once that the changes in the chain-of-command turned out to be circular, resulting only

in delay that was resolved by Cheney, which turns out not to have been a change at all, despite the RECENT re-write of several KEY regulations/procedures.

Delay = cover for Cheney.

[patrice]

118. a.k.a. Plausible Deniability, a highly MARKETABLE commodity, especialy when DISTRIBUTED amongst

a network of relationships.

[Submariner]

15. Bush didn't have to do anything???

if the asshole had half a fucking brain he would have put airport security on high alert and stop most, if not all, of the psycho god-freaks from getting on the plane in the first place. That means scrutinizing carry on bags, etc., for box-cutters, knives, and anything else perceived as a threat.

He obviously didn't tell the FAA about this string of implicating PDB 's, thus no raising of the alert level at airport check-in. That would have been a good start. That Bush didn't have to do anything bullshit is a big FAIL!

[djean111]

22. Well, that's the point - did someone deliberately tell

the relevant agencies to stand down or perhaps block communications....
They should have already been on alert.
The Pentagon thing is a mystery.

[ProSense]

17. "This whole 'Bush didn't do anything' is a distraction. Bush didn't have to do anything."

says RepublicansRZombies.

Oh, the irony.

Is "Bush didn't do anything" in response to hurricane Katrina also a distraction?

I mean, it's a good thing the media has stopped searching for "Obama's Katrina."

Bush was an incompetent jackass and is a war criminal who ("didn't have to," but did launch an illegal war against Iraq) destroyed the economy. Nothing in the way of calling him out is a "distraction."

[RepublicansRZombies]

21. Just like Katrina, someone was actively interfering with the natural response to the crisis

People sent all kinds of supplies to Katrina, everyone came with boats to help, and FEMA actively stopped them from helping.

[ProSense]

24. Ah, a Bush apologist!

Bush ignore the hurricane warnings just like he did the PDB.

[RepublicansRZombies]

31. How am I apologizing for Bush

I am accusing him and his administration of purposeful negligence.

[ProSense]

40. Oh, I don't know

It is not the president's job to 'protect the nation', that is the job of our military who have the greatest equipment and technology on earth...This whole 'Bush didn't do anything' is a distraction. Bush didn't have to do anything.

Seems your understanding of the President's job is a bit off.

[RepublicansRZombies]

64. The president's Oath of Office is to UPHOLD the CONSTITUTION, not command the military

(which he(and Congress) failed at miserably)


Everyone really thinks the military was waiting around on that moron to act? during an emergency?

That is not how it works.

[CherokeeDem]

75. Actually....

if I remember correctly, the Coast Guard, after waiting for orders, did go in without orders.

Again...the president is the commander-in-chief of the military. Your argument that the president has no responsibility to order the military into action in an emergency is not valid.

[RepublicansRZombies]

103. please read up on FAA NORAD standard procedures when plane veers off course, shuts of transponder

There was a standard procedure(which does not involve orders from the president) before 9/11 that was not followed.

[patrice]

19. Did the Congressional "investigation" ask questions directed toward

Regulatory Capture?

If NORAD and the FAA followed standard procedure, which is to send interceptors in the air within 5 minutes of a plane veering off course or shutting off a transponder....the very first attack on the WTC could have and should have been prevented, as well as all the subsequent attacks.

[RepublicansRZombies]

23. yes

Rumsfeld explained that our RADAR was 'looking outward'

Seriously.

[patrice]

39. Hey Congress, would it be interesting to know when procedures established that RADAR orientation? nt

[leveymg]

25. Rummy ordered the rules of engagement changed on June 1, 2001: CJCSI 3610.01A

But, commanders still had authority to order a shoot-down, unless countermanded. Apparently, Cheney was overheard by Secretary of Transportation Minetta doing that: Excerpt of Minetta's 9/11 Commission Testimony, from the Wiki:

There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, 'The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.' And when it got down to, 'The plane is 10 miles out,' the young man also said to the vice president, 'Do the orders still stand?' And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, 'Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?' Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant.

The standing intercept Protocol, CJCSI 3610.01A:

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf2/d302515p.pdf (scrubbed since 2006)

4.4. The Secretary of Defense retains approval authority for support to civil
authorities involving: use of Commander in Chief (CINC)-assigned forces (personnel,
units, and equipment) when required under paragraph 4.5., below; DoD support to civil
disturbances; DoD responses to acts of terrorism; and DoD support that will result in a
planned event with the potential for confrontation with specifically identified individuals
and/or groups or will result in the use of lethal force. Nothing in this Directive
prevents a commander from exercising his or her immediate emergency response
authority as outlined in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference (g)).

AND

4.5. With the exception of immediate responses under imminently serious
conditions, as provided in subparagraph 4.7.1., below, any support that requires the
deployment of forces or equipment assigned to a Combatant Command by Secretary of
Defense Memorandum (reference (j)), must be coordinated with the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff....

AND FINALLY

4.7.1. Immediate Response. Requests for an immediate response (i.e., any
form of immediate action taken by a DoD Component or military commander to save
lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently
serious conditions) may be made to any Component or Command. The DoD
Components that receive verbal requests from civil authorities for support in an exigent
emergency may initiate informal planning and, if required, immediately respond as
authorized in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference (g)). Civil authorities shall be
informed that verbal requests for support in an emergency must be followed by a written
request. As soon as practical, the DoD Component or Command rendering assistance
shall report the fact of the request, the nature of the response, and any other pertinent
information through the chain of command to the DoD Executive Secretary, who shall
notify the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and any other
appropriate officials. If the report does not include a copy of the civil authorities'
written request, that request shall be forwarded to the DoD Executive Secretary as soon
as it is available.
---

[patrice]

43. +1google

[patrice]

46. With whom did Rummy "collaborate" on this change in procedures? nt

[leveymg]

59. It was issued through the JCS. Good question. The story I recall was the change

was in response to the strange, fatal cabin depressurization that occurred earlier that year aboard a baseball player's private jet, leaving it effectively pilotless, and debate within the military over who had authorization to shoot it down over an unpopulated area.

The June 1, 2001 Protocol change was actually issued through the acting Vice Chair of the JCS, as Gen. Shelton was already out of the picture and incoming Chair General Myers wasn't officially nominated by Bush until Aug. 24.

[RepublicansRZombies]

67. Thank you!

!!

[ProSense]

93. Here's the problem

Rummy ordered the rules of engagement changed on June 1, 2001: CJCSI 3610.01A

Last edited Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:37 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

But, commanders still had authority to order a shoot-down, unless countermanded. Apparently, Cheney was overheard by Secretary of Transportation Minetta doing that: Excerpt of Minetta's 9/11 Commission Testimony, from the Wiki:

There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, 'The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.' And when it got down to, 'The plane is 10 miles out,' the young man also said to the vice president, 'Do the orders still stand?' And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, 'Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?' Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant.

Clarity and communication. "Rummy ordered the rules of engagement changed on June 1, 2001" and 'Do the orders still stand?'

That is not what should have happened. The PDB was issued August 6. Did anyone reiterate the order, communicate the potential gravity of real and imminent threat?

This was a complete failure on the part of the administration. You can bet if a passenger plane had been shot down without this order being reiterated, there would have been hell to pay. It wouldn't have been oops!

[leveymg]

106. By the time that Cheney is alleged to have said that, it was perfectly clear that an attack was in

progress. That was well after aircraft hit the WTC, and NORAD and the White House knew that multiple hijackings were in progress. What was going through Cheney's mind as Flt. 77 headed in from the West toward Washington, and then turned at the last minute, executing a high-G descending turn to strike the Pentagon at 9:37 am, we may never know.



The Dick Cheney Timeline ( http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?day_of_9/11=dickcheney&timeline=complete_911_timeline ):

(Between 9:20 a.m. and 9:27 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Transportation Secretary Mineta Reaches Bunker, Meets Vice President Cheney
Edit event

Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta. [Source: US Department of Transportation]Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta arrives at the White House bunker—the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC)—containing Vice President Dick Cheney and others. Mineta will tell NBC News that he arrives there at “probably about 9:27,” though he later says to the 9/11 Commission that he arrives at “about 9:20 a.m.” He also later recalls that Cheney is already there when he arrives. [MSNBC, 9/11/2002; 9/11 Commission, 5/23/2003; St. Petersburg Times, 7/4/2004; Academy of Achievement, 6/3/2006] This supports accounts of Cheney reaching the bunker not long after the second WTC crash (see (9:10 a.m.) September 11, 2001). Questioned about this in 2007 by an activist group, Mineta will confirm that Cheney was “absolutely… already there” in the PEOC when he arrived, and that “This was before American Airlines [Flight 77] went into the Pentagon,” which happens at 9:37. Yet, while admitting there is “conflicting evidence about when the vice president arrived” in the PEOC, the 9/11 Commission will conclude that the “vice president arrived in the room shortly before 10:00, perhaps at 9:58.” Mineta also later claims that when he arrives in the PEOC, Mrs. Lynne Cheney, the wife of the vice president, is already there. Yet the 9/11 Commission will claim she only arrives at the White House at 9:52 (see (9:52 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 40; 911truthseattle (.org), 6/26/2007] Once in the PEOC, Mineta establishes open phone lines with his office at the Department of Transportation and with the FAA Operations Center. [Academy of Achievement, 6/3/2006]

Entity Tags: Lynne Cheney, Richard (“Dick”) Cheney, Norman Mineta

Timeline Tags: 9/11 Timeline

Category Tags: All Day of 9/11 Events, Flight AA 77, Dick Cheney
Bookmark and Share
(9:26 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Cheney Given Updates on Unidentified Flight 77 Heading toward Washington; Says ‘Orders Still Stand’; but Accounts Differ on Timing and Identity of the Plane
Edit event

According to some accounts, Vice President Dick Cheney is in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) below the White House by this time, along with Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta and others. Mineta will recall that, while a suspicious plane is heading toward Washington, an unidentified young man comes in and says to Cheney, “The plane is 50 miles out.” Mineta confers with acting FAA Deputy Administrator Monte Belger, who is at the FAA’s Washington headquarters. Belger says to him: “We’re watching this target on the radar, but the transponder’s been turned off. So we have no identification.” According to Mineta, the young man continues updating the vice president, saying, “The plane is 30 miles out,” and when he gets down to “The plane is 10 miles out,” asks, “Do the orders still stand?” In response, Cheney “whipped his neck around and said, ‘Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?’” Mineta will say that, “just by the nature of all the events going on,” he infers that the order being referred to is a shootdown order. Nevertheless, Flight 77 continues on and hits the Pentagon. [BBC, 9/1/2002; ABC News, 9/11/2002; 9/11 Commission, 5/23/2003; 9/11 Commission, 5/23/2003; St. Petersburg Times, 7/4/2004] However, the 9/11 Commission will later claim the plane heading toward Washington is only discovered by the Dulles Airport air traffic control tower at 9:32 a.m. (see 9:32 a.m. September 11, 2001). But earlier accounts, including statements made by the FAA and NORAD, will claim that the FAA notified the military about the suspected hijacking of Flight 77 at 9:24 a.m., if not before (see (9:24 a.m.) September 11, 2001). The FBI’s Washington Field Office was also reportedly notified that Flight 77 had been hijacked at about 9:20 a.m. (see (9:20 a.m.) September 11, 2001). The 9/11 Commission will further contradict Mineta’s account saying that, despite the “conflicting evidence as to when the vice president arrived in the shelter conference room [i.e., the PEOC],” it has concluded that he only arrived there at 9:58 a.m. [9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004] According to the Washington Post, the discussion between Cheney and the young aide over whether “the orders” still stand occurs later than claimed by Mineta, and is in response to Flight 93 heading toward Washington, not Flight 77. [Washington Post, 1/27/2002]

Entity Tags: Richard (“Dick”) Cheney, Monte Belger, Norman Mineta

Timeline Tags: 9/11 Timeline

Category Tags: Key Day of 9/11 Events, All Day of 9/11 Events, Flight AA 77, Flight UA 93, Dick Cheney
Bookmark and Share

[ProSense]

111. Failure: "By the time that Cheney is alleged to have said that..."

Failure on the part of the Bush administration.

[leveymg]

119. What kind of a failure is it when, as Dubya phrased it, they "hit a trifecta"?

There's a question of intent here that has yet to be answered conclusively, but alas probably never will.

The Guardian, Thursday 11 March 2004 02.08 GMT. "Lucky me, I hit the trifecta," said George Bush in the immediate aftermath of September 11.

[ProSense]

131. That's the kind of failure that speaks to evil, but

it's still failure.

"There's a question of intent here that has yet to be answered conclusively, but alas probably never will. "

"Intent" doesn't negate "failure." Bush failed the country. Not everyone is going to believe he intentionally did so and not everyone can be convinced that he didn't do so with "intent," but everyone knows he failed the country...at least everyone who isn't extoling his Presidency.

[leveymg]

134. The legal term is, "with reckless and wanton disregard and depraved indifference to human life"

Last edited Tue Sep 11, 2012, 04:33 PM - Edit history (1)

That, my friend, is very close to evil. On that charge, Bush and Cheney and the rest would surely be convicted by almost any jury in this country.

Justice would be good for the nation, and without it, we grow morally bankrupt.

This is how the courts have defined the offense:

In Robinson v State, Justice Adkins of the Court of Appeals of Maryland relied on this extract of extant jurisprudence:

"Depraved heart murder is the form of murder that establishes that the wilful doing of a dangerous and reckless act with wanton indifference to the consequences and perils involved, is just as blameworthy, and just as worthy of punishment, when the harmful result ensues, as is the express intent to kill itself. This highly blameworthy state of mind is not one of mere negligence. It is not merely one even of gross criminal negligence. It involves rather the deliberate perpetration of a knowingly dangerous act with reckless and wanton unconcern and indifference as to whether anyone is harmed or not. The common law treats such a state of mind as just as blameworthy, just as anti-social and, therefore, just as truly murderous as the specific intents to kill and to harm."

In Windham, Justice Prather of the Supreme Court of Mississippi adopted these words:

"The killing of a human being without the authority of law by any means or in any manner shall be murder ... when done in the commission of an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved heart, regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual....[D]epraved-heart murder involves a higher degree of recklessness from which malice or deliberate design may be implied...

[jberryhill]

141. Uhm.... "the deliberate perpetration of a knowingly dangerous act"

This kind of language applies to someone who randomly fires a gun into a crowd.

No, he didn't have specific intent to kill any particular individual, but knowingly committed a dangerous act with wanton disregard for the mortal consequences.


"the deliberate perpetration of a knowingly dangerous act" is not going to cover an omission to act.

The PDB ends with:

"The FBI is conducting approximately 70 investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers Bin Laden-related."

One response to that is to say, "Great! Now, watch this drive."

[leveymg]

144. Another such response is, "You covered your ass, now."

9/11 wasn't merely the result of "an omission to act". It was instead the culmination of a long series of increasingly risky decisions and acts that allowed terrorists known to be plotting mass murder to enter the country, that allowed them to plan and amass the means of carrying out the attacks, and when in the final days it became known to the CIA that these subjects were about to conduct the attack, to obstruct federal officers of the investigative agency charged with arrest of the suspects.

That goes beyond mere failure to protect. At the very least, it was conduct with depraved indifference to the loss of thousands of lives. It was the worst act of dereliction of duty in U.S. history. And, it remains official misconduct that goes completely unpunished and has seemingly been immunized by the succeeding Administration.

These are crimes so serious that to continue to allow them to go unpunished calls into question whether the rule of law still applies in the United States.

[jberryhill]

146. Do you apply the same reasoning to Pearl Harbor?

Lots of warnings there too.

[leveymg]

148. I've read the major works that argue for foreknowledge, but find them unconvincing. Not so for 9/11

where the evidence of detailed, step-by-step U.S. agency complicity and facilitation of the attack under the command of top Bush Administration officials with the knowledge and approval of the President is overwhelming. The only thing we don't know is intent. It could have been a counter-terrorism operation that went hideously wrong, or some equally grotesque effort by the Bush Administration to avoid offending the Saudis.

The comparison with 1941 is not apt. There was some warning of attack plans given to FDR and General Marshall in November and December 1941 -- the Japanese naval code had been cracked -- but there is no evidence of actual complicity by US officials or obstruction of defenses in preparation for the strike. Quite the opposite. There were multiple attack warnings, and many positive efforts to prepare for the assault on Hawaii and other potential Pacific targets, and they were extensive, but inadequate. These are some major differences.

No, the comparison is not apt. Please tell us how it was otherwise.

[KauaiK]

27. How about Bush paying attention??

Bush did, indeed, have to do something. He needed to pay attention to what he was being told and advised. His Secretaries of Defense and State also needed to pay attention. That is their jobs; to advise and make decisions. One only has to to see the look on Bush's face to know he was completely clueless.

[RepublicansRZombies]

35. Rumsfeld was the one man on the planet that had no idea about the WTC until a plane hit the pentagon

He was in meetings and no one thought it important enough to interrupt? That is the official explanation.


Fortunately for us however, our military has standard procedures for reacting to emergency situations.

[jillan]

33. If they paid more attention, maybe they could have put Norad & the FAA on high alert.

It's more than doing their job - it's doing their job with eyes and ears wide opened.

Argue that Norad/FAA should have done that all along - but they didn't, did they?

The things that were done after 9/11 to protect us should have been done before 9/11.
Especially when it came to air traffic control.


Another thing that should have been done was to go after OBL when Bill Clinton was warning about them - but Newt Gingrich and his Republican - led Congress was too busy impeaching the President for a blow job. And when Bill Clinton tried to send the alarm, they laughed at him and called it Wag the Dog, that he was trying to set up a war to distract from his blow job.
Remember that? I do. I was so pissed. And still am.
And to top that off - the Clinton administration tried to warn the incoming Bush administration about Al Qaeda stepping up to attack us... and that too was ignored.

So you tell me? In the grand scheme of things, do you really think nothing could have been done?

9/11 happened because people across the board were ignoring all the warning signs when they should have been using all their energy to being pro-active.

Would 9/11 never happened if they did all they could? That question will never be answered because they didn't.

[Warren Stupidity]

34. It matters when the lying fucknuts claim that the idiot in chief "kept us safe on his watch".

'cause he didn't.

[RepublicansRZombies]

38. clearly! But what does it say when they actively prevented the emergency response?

n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

41. That is speculation. What is fact is that this happened on their watch.

[Frustratedlady]

36. It matters if he didn't make the necessary people aware there might be an attack.

What good does it do if we gather information and hand it over to the Prez, but he says, "Alright, you've covered your ass..." and dismisses the messenger? The buck stops here should not pertain to messages of imminent danger. Those messages should have been passed on.

Arrogance allowed 9-11 to happen.

[RepublicansRZombies]

42. I'm not defending Bush, but he didn't need to do anything for them to act on Payne Stewart's plane

when the nation is under attack, I would certainly hope the airforce isn't waiting around for orders from Bush to intercept a plane.

[ProSense]

50. This makes no sense.

"I'm not defending Bush, but he didn't need to do anything for them to act on Payne Stewart's plane"

Bush got the PDB. Bush had to do something. You are defending Bush's incompetent response.

[RepublicansRZombies]

74. I'm not defending Bush. I am suggesting this is more than incompetence.

This is really simple, Bush could have been a complete moron who completely ignored any and all warnings....(and he was)

but the Military still would have followed standard procedure and intercepted a plane when it veered off course or shut off the transponder, as they did in the case of Payne Stewart's plane veering off course.

Why didn't they follow their own standard procedure which does not require the command of the president to intercept a plane?

[ProSense]

76. No

I'm not defending Bush. I am suggesting this is more than incompetence.

This is really simple, Bush could have been a complete moron who completely ignored any and all warnings....(and he was)

but the Military still would have followed standard procedure and intercepted a plane when it veered off course or shut off the transponder, as they did in the case of Payne Stewart's plane veering off course.

Why didn't they follow their own standard procedure which does not require the command of the president to intercept a plane?

...you're suggesting that the cart came before the horse. No matter how much you focus on the aftermath of Bush receiving and responding incompetently to the PDB, it came first and required Bush to act competently.

[aquart]

48. Yes It matters.

[Vox Moi]

49. Dereliction of Duty ...

Ignoring warnings is bad enough but continuing with My Pet Goat after being told that the country was under attack is simply derelict.
Bush, the commander-in-chief, had no questions for Andy Card, no instructions for his staff, not even any curiosity. According to his own account, Bush went into the classroom thinking that the WTC had been the scene of an accident. Now, hearing only that a second tower had been hit - no other details at all - he just sat there, staring into space, waiting to be told what to do.
The most shameful moment in the history of the American Presidency.

[spanone]

53. if he 'ignored' it, you bet it matters. how many people died in his ginned up wars?

[polichick]

54. To me it shows how ideology ruled the party - and it still does...

Their perverted world view - back then inspiring a blind determination to get Saddam - trumps reality, even when someone trained and paid to report on the grimmest of realities sounds the alarm.

The Republican neocon/American Taliban coalition is every bit as dangerous to the security of this country as any terrorist threat. The Bush administration did far more damage to this country than al Qaeda has - and a Rmoney administration will be filled with the same neocon/American Taliban forces.


edit: typo

[pnwmom]

57. Yes, he could have taken measures that changed the course of history.

We'll never know, but it's a real possibility. One of the terrorists in Boston, for example, was finally let through even though a screener initially stopped him and had concerns. If the FAA had been in the stet of high alert it should have been, that screener might have stopped that attack.

[cthulu2016]

61. I think the general idea is that taking the warning seriously might improve response

Perhaps if the WH's hair was on fire about the idea of domestic strikes people might have re-examined protocols, thought harder about what might happen, etc.

We cannot know whether that would have changed anything in practice, but it is not far-fetched to imagine ways it could have.

For instance, a sentry operates under certain rules. When he gets a message, "Based on things we are picking up, we think there might be attempts to infiltrate us tonight," it doesn't change anything he is supposed to do. He has the same rules as always.

But the message does change the way he acts as sentry.

Consider this—a hijacked plane would have been identified as such almost immediately on 9/15. Why? Because everyone had gotten a message from 9/11. The idea of a hijacking was being taken very seriously on 9/15.

[jberryhill]

63. Clearly, he should have increased the intrusiveness of airport passenger inspections

Every passenger should have been required to take their shoes off, and be subject to a full pat down or body scan.

In addition to that, the restrictions on potential weapons should have been extended to include small knives which had been getting through prior to 9/11.

Foreigners or people with darker shades of skin should have been subject to additional scrutiny. In particular, anyone "Muslim looking" should have been detained and questioned prior to boarding an airplane.

This would have gone over swell.

[uponit7771]

78. +1, and overcommunication wouldv'e been better than non at all

[jberryhill]

114. So, you would have accepted the TSA procedures, if instituted at that time?

[ProSense]

82. That wasn't all that he could do.

I mean, this argument is absurd. Hey, allow Palin to become President, any moron will do!!!

Attentiveness, precaution and preparation are not silly efforts to be mocked.

[jberryhill]

110. So then you favor the TSA procedures?

What I find odd when this discussion pops up is the disconnect between "the 9/11 attacks are a flimsy justification for intrusive TSA procedures" and the expectation of "we should have been doing that sort of thing, without the flimsy justification".

The only reason people put up with TSA procedures is the belief that they deter people from attempting to board planes with weapons, because of what happened on 9/11.

One criticism in particular is a standout - "the TSA hasn't caught one terrorist". Of course, most guard dogs never catch a burglar either, because burglars typically avoid places with guard dogs. My dog barks when it hears someone by the front door. It's never been a burglar. Is my dog ineffective at deterring burglars?

The interesting thing is the significant overlap between people who will say "Bush should have increased airport security procedures in response to the PDB" which, itself, did not state the specific attack vector; and people who say "airport security procedures are too intrusive and onerous".

To have instituted the type of screenings performed in airports, in the absence of 9/11 having happened, would NEVER have been tolerated.

I will grant you that many of the procedures are something of closing the barn door after the horses got out. But it is not a door which anyone would have tolerated closing prior to the horses having done so.

[ProSense]

125. You're conflating action prior to the tragedy with those after.

The TSA did not exist prior to 9/11.

[jberryhill]

127. I understand that

What I am asking you is this:

Should Bush have instituted the type of procedures now performed by the TSA, back in August 2001?

I know the TSA did not exist at the time. What I am asking you is whether the THEN IN PLACE airport security procedures should have been changed to what we have now, prior to 9/11?

The criticism is "We should have tightened airport security and increased scrutiny of passengers because of the early August PDB!"

That criticism comes from some of the same folks who say, "Tightened airport security and increased scrutiny of passengers is not justified by 9/11".

Okay, if it wasn't justified by 9/11, then there is no way in Hell it was going to be justified by a piece of paper stating that a terrorist would like to attack the United States.

I'm not conflating anything. I asked you if you favored the "TSA procedures" - i.e. the procedures themselves.

[ProSense]

130. Why?

"Should Bush have instituted the type of procedures now performed by the TSA, back in August 2001? "

Why are you asking that? It has nothing to do with how he should have responded prior to 9/11.

"I'm not conflating anything. "

Yes, you are. You're trying to use a discuss about Bush's failure prior to 9/11 to object to the TSA, which didn't exist prior to the tragedy.

This isn't a hypothetical discussion. It's about Bush getting a warning and ignoring it.

[jberryhill]

133. I am asking how he should have responded

Presumably not "ignoring it" would have included increasing measures designed to deter people from taking weapons on airplanes.

If you are saying that, no, we should not have increased airport security measures in order to thwart 9/11, then I have to wonder what, exactly, you would include in "not ignoring" it.

Incidentally, the president receives a briefing on the security situation, and the current threat assessment, every single day, and not just that one day in August 2001.

And, in this discussion I am not "object(ing) to the TSA". I am observing that there is overlap between "Bush didn't increase airport security measures in August" and "I don't like airport security measures". Those two statements frequently come out of opposing sides of the same mouth.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. Are you saying that heightened airline passenger screening would have been ineffective or inappropriate as a response to the PDB?

[RobertEarl]

83. Problem is...

Bush, nor anyone in his administration informed anyone of us that they had intelligence claiming we were about to be attacked.

Had any of them gone on TV and told us, there is no telling how many lives could have been saved. Maybe all 3,000.

So, why didn't they say anything? Why did they hide the intelligence?

[jberryhill]

113. It says "determined to attack"

Is there any question in your mind that there are people who would engage in terrorist attacks in the United States if they had the opportunity to do so?

Do you believe, today, there are no persons in the world who are "determined to attack" the US?

[porphyrian]

84. Check the DU archives of the time for your answer. n/t

[Lint Head]

85. This sounds like apologetics for a damn murdering torturing traitor regarding his

dereliction of duty. We had an idiot as Commander and Chief of the military who didn't know what to do because he didn't give a good rats ass about anything other than his money, his money making contractor partners in crime and giving the appearance of being tough by taking away Constitutional rights and murdering and torturing people. Bush should have been convicted of murder and thrown into jail long ago.

[RepublicansRZombies]

90. Did he lie about Iraq leading to the deaths of millions of innocent Iraqis?

or was it incompetence?

[Lint Head]

107. There was a plan to invade Iraq long before he was installed by the United States Supreme Cowards.

He lied about WMD then he murdered then he lied about why he had to murder and torture.

[IDemo]

112. Lied, outright

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction

On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.

On April 23, 2006, CBS’s “60 Minutes” interviewed Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe, who disclosed that the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam’s foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD. “We continued to validate him the whole way through,” said Drumheller. “The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy.”

http://www.salon.com/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/

He was incompetent in nearly every way a president could possibly be, but his WMD excuse for war has clearly been shown to be false.

[nadinbrzezinski]

89. Given the number of warnings, not warning, WARNINGS

It matters. The man failed at his job, and he let it happen.

[ismnotwasm]

91. Yes it does, because he needs to be sitting in a cell. n/t

[MatthewStLouis]

97. It happened on Bush's watch! Let the GOPers weasel out of that true statement!

As usual, we democrats often lose sight of the truth by allowing ourselves to get all mired up in the details. Let the right wingers try and sort out their own excuses.

[lumberjack_jeff]

100. Bush DID do something. Several bad things, actually.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2101184

It wouldn't have happened if he'd done nothing but continue the things Clinton was doing.

[RepublicansRZombies]

102. I wrote another post just to get the general feel of Duers....

Was the Bush Administration 'incompetent' in their lies about Iraq, or did they do it on purpose?
Just wondering what people think about Iraq, the lies and forgeries all presented as fact by the administration and the corporate media.

Was that incompetence on the part of Bush and the corporate media?

Or were they purposely lying to get what they want?


Is it far fetched to suggest that what happened on 9/11 was not incompetence?

It is far fetched to suggest that the corporate media lied about the events on 9/11?


The Bush Administration has been using the excuse of incompetence for everything.

Passing on a bad forgery that could have been debunked in 5 minutes with a google search (as the UN laughingly did when Colin Powell presented it to them)

is not incompetence. They lied on purpose.

If they lied about the war, what else have they lied about?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021319488

[Son of Gob]

104. I'm getting the hell out of here.

[treestar]

105. Good thought, after the 8/6 briefing, had he paid attention,

Bush could have asked the military to consider terrorist attacks with airplanes - interesting the military did not have a plan - I thought they planned for all kinds of scenarios.

[JPZenger]

117. There were a total of 4 planes defending the entire northeastern US

The US had a grand total of 4 fighter planes ready to defend the northeastern quadrant of the US. They were never given clear orders, and the first two planes went out into the Atlantic Ocean, as they had been trained to do - as if they were looking for Soviet bombers and trying to avoid sonic booms over populated areas. If the Air Force had been given warning, they could have been prepared.

[patrice]

122. What happened to that communication link? Would it have been updated if PDBs were taken

seriously? Whose responsibility would that have been to share those PDBs and respond on that specific issue?

Congress? HELLO, Congress?

Fore crying out loud, if we can think of these questions, WHY are we paying THEM the big bucks?????

[RC]

138. No, they were SENT out over the Atlantic to keep them away from the real action.

And to make it look as if something were being done.
There are two wings within 10 miles of WDC, whose purpose is to protect the Nation's Capital. Both bases wanted to send planes up, Some of the pilots were sitting in the planes ready to go up. But they were told to stand down. The orders coming from Richard Bruce Cheney. After the Pentagon was hit with something and it was all but over, then they were allowed in the sky.

[patrice]

120. Did Congress ever ask questions about the INSURANCE environment in which all of this went down?

If I recall correctly, I think there were special questions about Building 7.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

121. Are you implying complicity or just the fact that they played dumb? nt

[RepublicansRZombies]

128. both

people buying the incompetence excuse are playing right into their hands

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

136. That's what I thought. I've always been more LIHOP than MIHOP. nt

[just1voice]

126. Look up Coleen Rowley, The FBI was fully aware of the terrorist intentions

I find it hard to believe that people are still unaware of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coleen_Rowley

After the September 11, 2001, attacks, Rowley wrote a paper for FBI Director Robert Mueller documenting how FBI HQ personnel in Washington, D.C., had mishandled and failed to take action on information provided by the Minneapolis, Minnesota Field Office regarding its investigation of suspected terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui. Moussaoui had been suspected of being involved in preparations for a suicide-hijacking similar to the December 1994 "Eiffel Tower" hijacking of Air France 8969. Failures identified by Rowley may have left the U.S. vulnerable to the September 11, 2001, attacks. Rowley was one of many agents frustrated by the events that led up to the attacks, writing:

During the early aftermath of September 11th, when I happened to be recounting the pre–September 11th events concerning the Moussaoui investigation to other FBI personnel in other divisions or in FBIHQ, almost everyone's first question was "Why?--Why would an FBI agent(s) deliberately sabotage a case?

[ladjf]

129. It matters a great deal to me. nt

[Zoeisright]

135. Bull. SHIT.

President Clinton tried to tell that ignorant sumbitch that bin Laden was a huge threat. Bush ignored him. If that jackass Bush had continued President Clinton's policies, there's a good chance 9/11 would not have happened.

And you're ignoring the August 6, 2001 PDB that specifically stated "bin Laden determined to attack in U.S." Bush waved off the guy who READ that post TO him and went on one of his many vacays.

This was all about intelligence. Which Bush destroyed when he stole the office.

[RC]

142. And don't forge the 2½ inch thick report that the out going Clinton Administration gave the

incoming bu$h administration concerning this attack. The only thing they did not know at the time was the location of the coming attacks. East coast? West coast? What city? They even knew about hijacking passenger planes. They did not know about flying them into buildings.
Cheney shelved that report, never having read it. Cheney commissioned his own report. KindaSleazy Rice had a planed press conference on 9/12/2001. The contents of her press conference have never been made public for some reason.

[Cleita]

140. It wasn't just one warning. It was a slew of them that were ignored. This is just coming out.

Thom Hartmann talked about it today. Also, he was afraid to go back to the White House after his vacation because he knew the White House was one of the targets. So he knew something. He extended his vacation as long as he could and then went to Florida to visit his brother the Governor. We know he was there reading about pet goats when the planes struck.

If he had done his job, there would have been heightened alerts to airports and other agencies involved to be on the watch for anything and anyone unusual. There were so many things about the terrorists that should have set off alarms if authorities had been properly informed that most likely those clowns would never have been able to board an airplane to begin with.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

143. I'm more concerned with the 5 people who recc'ed this than the bushsucking troll who posted it

I was on this site 11 years ago today, and it didn't look anything like this thread.

[DonRedwood]

149. I'm surprised they haven't blamed Obama for it