politics and terrorism

[Ray Zee]

with the elections coming soon. what do you think that the present administration would do or want if it thought a minor attack may happen. would they hope for it or maybe let it go, so they would get relected or do we have faith that they would stop it and maybe destroy their own chances. if that was the kind of attack that they thought would happen.
all politicions are ruthless as we aggree i hope. but how far will they go. remember watergate.

[adios]

FWIW I wouldn't make a lot of assumptions on how a terrorist attack would influence the elections. The conventional wisdom seems to be that a terrorist attack will help Bush get elected. I'm not convinced that this is true as I can see a lot of reasons why it might hurt his election chances.

[Dynasty]

People who think President Bush (or President Clinton in previous election years) would allow a terrorist attack on U.S. soil to happen and thus allow the murder of significant American lives have become to cynical.

[MMMMMM]

The administration would also gain by thwarting a terrorist attack just before the election and trumpeting the achievement.

I think your conjecture is unlikely (although not altogether impossible). To deliberately ignore an impending attack the specific logistical details of which are known would require quite a conspiracy wouldn't it? I don't see reason to presume the administration is corrupt to that degree. Nor is it an absolute certainty that a terrorist attack would rally Americans around Bush, although that seems to be the prevailing opinion. It is just possible in that scenario that many Americans would try to appease the terrorists by voting Bush out, especially if they think Iraq was a mistake and has created more terrorists.

I think it is likely that terrorists will attempt a major attack before the election. They got the results they wanted from the Madrid train bombings, and the Philipines government recently capitulated to terrorist demands. Also, the same group that has taken responsibility for the Madrid train bombings recently made a public and specific threat to "burn" Italy if the Italians do not throw Berlusconi out of office in the upcoming elections. They claimed knowledge of soft targets to attack in Italy and said they were ready to do it (this because Italy did not withdraw its troops from Iraq by the terrorists' July 15 deadline).

If terrorists do not attack in the U.S. before November elections my guess is that will only be due to incomplete planning or being thwarted by anti-terrorism efforts.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
remember watergate.

[/ QUOTE ]

We don't need to go that far back - look at Sandy Berger.

Ray, you are way too cynical, there is no way I could get away with not stopping an attack. Getting reelected only to be forced to resign when the info gets out is not my plan.

Despite the conspiracy theorists on this board, I am truly doing and have done what I believe is in the best interests of the US, and will continue to do so.

W

[eLROY]

Whether politicians are ruthless is irrelevant. Decisions are made by organizations and institutions, not individuals. I am not sure what "ruthless" means in the context of a structure somewhat larger than an individual, but somewhat smaller than an economy.

[GWB]

A discovered attack has been allowed to occur without defense in the past:

During WWII, Churchill allowed Coventry to be bombed by the Germans without putting out a warning to the public that could have saved many lives. This was a different situation though, since the Germans would have realized that their secret codes had been broken if the warnings were issued, so a decision to save many more lives later on from the continued successful code-breaking by not tipping off the Germans that their codes were figured out was a reasonable choice. (Another Hiroshima-type decision)

I think you would have to have a twisted mind to think I would do that sort of thing for purely political reasons.

[andyfox]

"Ray, you are way too cynical, there is no way I could get away with not stopping an attack."

Do you want to reconsider that sentence?

[MMMMMM]

Come on Andy this is a serious thread. Obviously there was no way to stop 9/11 without detailed specific logistical information, except maybe by grounding all U.S. airlines for 6 months.

Oh I get it. You're trying out my style of warped humor (with a little Cyrus thrown in) and now I get to be the dense one. Touche!

[andyfox]

By saying there's no way he could get away with it, poster is implying he would do it if he could.

My opinion is that the administration would not do it. The comparison with Watergate is inapt; that was criminal activity but not akin to allowing a terrorist plot to unfold to gain political advantage. You know I'm the most cynical person here (well, maybe second to Zeno) and have little respect for the people running the Bush administration, but I don't think they would allow a terrorist plot to succeed to gain political advantage.

Hypothetically, if some administation did do this, I think it would be a disadvantage to them, not an advantage. 9/11 could be blamed on failures of prior administrations, but another such incident would be on Bush's watch.

[andyfox]

Decisions are not made by organizations and institutions, they are made by individuals within organizaitons and institutions. The individuals within the relevant organizations and institutions of the Bush administrations have quite different worldviews than would the individuals within, say, a Nader administration.

Didn't the fact that Stalin and Hitler and Mao and Hussein and Pincohet were ruthless matter to the citizens of their countries and the world?

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
By saying there's no way he could get away with it, poster is implying he would do it if he could.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am implying no such thing. Even if I could get away with it, I wouldn't because it would be bad for this country. I was just saying that as Clinton showed us, you can't get away with anything criminal or unethical without it leaking out (and it would certainly leak before the 2nd term was over).

And don't forget my religious beliefs, do you think I could pull a fast one on God? People always undermisestimate my true belief in doing what is right. (I thought I had made that point clear in the last paragraph of my first post of this thread)

W

[andyfox]

Your telling me that presidents can't get away with anything criminal or unethical? Surely you jest.

Anyway, as I responded to MMMMMM, I don't believe your administration, dastardly as it is, would do such a thing.

As for your religious beliefs, I think they might work in the opposite way: if you felt you were destined to lead the holy war against the infidels, you would stop at nothing to keep yourself in power. This would be an expediency necessary to ultimately vanquish the evildoers. But while I think you're a bad president, I don't think you're an evil man.

I thought I was perhaps the most cynical person here, but Mr. Zee would seem to now have that distinction.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
Your telling me that presidents can't get away with anything criminal or unethical? Surely you jest.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm talking major infractions here, I could get away with exceeding the speed limitand other things people don't care about. (Ray was talking about deliberately letting Americans get killed for no go reason)


[ QUOTE ]

Anyway, as I responded to MMMMMM, I don't believe your administration, dastardly as it is, would do such a thing.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I saw that and appreciated that, but I wanted to expound on my earlier statement, since you seemed to be saying that I was implying a willingness to do bad if only I could get away with it.

You comment on my religion seems somewhat Machiavellian. If God has chosen me, he will conveniently arrange for Kerry to shoot himself in the foot somehow. Maybe I can let God get me reelected and just go on vacation. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

W

[jokerswild]

"A discovered attack has been allowed to occur without defense in the past:"

A brief entitled Bin Laden determined to attack in the United States was on Bush's desk 0n 9-6-01, and he did nothing.

[paland]

[ QUOTE ]
People always undermisestimate my true belief in doing what is right.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't you think most peope are doing what they think is right, whether they believe that it is god inspired or not?

On a lighter side; I might call that raise while holding Q9o but I know I'm not doing the right thing.

[GWB]

Well, "determined to attack in the United States" is not a specific plan that can be prevented, and not much lead time either. Very weak as your conspiracy theories go. Please play again.

W

[andyfox]

A better candidate than Kerry (none come to mind) would beat you by a mile. Kerry shoots himself in the foot virtually every day. As it is, the election will most likely be another cliffhanger.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't you think most peope are doing what they think is right, whether they believe that it is god inspired or not?


[/ QUOTE ]

People think what they are doing is right because they choose to do things that are right usually, but they also know when they are doing wrong, and some people are willing to do wrong. Clinton knew commiting perjury was wrong even as he did it.

A challenge to you all:

What have I done that was wrong? Given what I could reasonably know at the time and realizing that there are multiple options often that all are good options from which I am free to choose (including ideological policy choices that you may disagree with), where have I as President ever deliberately done the wrong thing?

W

[mosta]

What you do that is wrong (as opposed to stupid and incompetent), often repeatedly zealously and astoundingly, is exaggerate, distort, misrepresent, suppress, ignore, deny, control and retaliate against any information that does not advance the simple minded religious program you are driven to impose. The worst thing is that your attempt to control information is not self-consciously criminal--rather, you think you are morally justified using these evil methods to thwart opposition. You think the righteousness of your program entitles you to manipulate and retaliate and distort. This raises the level of wrong doing from simple criminality to the level of a dangerous and evil force. Your idea for government is antithetical to free democracy.

But of course you are pretty simply criminal as well--see your patent corruption--giveaways and favors to cronies, willingness to trade anything for your political self-interest. Go back to the steel tariffs to see you blatant venality. Or here's a nice little random example. Before work I'm looking at T news with a review of the dispute over forcing the Bells to give cheap access to local phone lines for competitors, and what the administration's position is--and here it is:

"The Bells successfully fought the effort, gaining the Bush administration's support in large part by promising not to raise its wholesale prices until after the presidential election, say industry observers. Verizon denies the promise was a political gesture..."

http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/tech/scottmoritz/10167472.html?cm_ven=YAHOO&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA

was the forced redaction of any reference or acknowledgement, even, of the issue of possible global warming from the EPA report a favor to the engergy industry, or a moral stance in favor unrestrained business devlopment? can you even distinguish between the criminal and the ideological? It must be nice when they overlap. but I guess, as the tariffs show, that ultimately self-interest trumps principle for you.

time and again...

[Phat Mack]

Letting it happen would be political suicide for Bush. It would have to be thwarted in such a way as to present a lot of photo ops, yet not look staged to the average viewer of, say, Fox news.

[J_V]

Agreed.

[jokerswild]

Laugh out loud! The real Bush still hasn't read it, and neither has the TwoPlusTwo owner or employee that impersonates him.

It stated that Bin Ladin planned to hijack airplanes.Now a responsible leader might have taken counter terror measures. Not the Great Leader. The great leader is told that the country is under attack, and he proceeds to enter a classroom of elemntary school children. Told again by his chief of staff (on videotape), and he still does nothing until his staff demands that he take action. Michael Moore didn't make up the video tape which incriminates the fool.

The only conspiracy that exists here is that a person that works for TwoPlusTwo that takes an interest in history is playing a game, He plays it well. According to the poll, he's fooled about 35% of the TwoPlusTwo population. That percentage believed that GWB's inanity equals that of the great leader.

[Ray Zee]

well of course i am cynical. havent presidents over time many times done things to help their politics that they knew would cost lives. remember johnson and vietnam. he killed thousands of young people for no real reason other than his own agenda. imho.
but this post is to see how far any president will go for his own benefit. many said he wouldnt do it because it would be suicide if caught. granted. so would he just not persue a report that he might have felt credible.
or do you have faith in our leader to do what is best for america even if it may cost him the election. i really dont know. but i dont trust any of the bastards.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
It stated that Bin Ladin planned to hijack airplanes.Now a responsible leader might have taken counter terror measures.

[/ QUOTE ]


Countermeasures, hmmm...like what, exactly?

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
A challenge to you all:

What have I done that was wrong? Given what I could reasonably know at the time and realizing that there are multiple options often that all are good options from which I am free to choose (including ideological policy choices that you may disagree with), where have I as President ever deliberately done the wrong thing?

W

[/ QUOTE ]

Other than the mosta reply (of innuendo but no clear example of my doing wrong), nobody has taken up my challenge. Does this mean, as I suspect, that I have not done a deliberately wrong thing, and all the conpiracy theory attacks against me are based on ideology not wrongdoing?

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

W

[jokerswild]

The 9-6-01 brief is not the only document that impicates negligence. It's just the most embarassing to the Bush administration. Foreign intelligence services warned the US government all that summer that attacks were imminent. Richard Clarke has clearly indicated that he made efforts to have Rice and Bush focus on Al Queda. The resources availalbe to the President of the United States are extraordinary. At the very least, Bush should have ordered the NSA, the CIA, and the FBI to coordinate data. He didn't even do this until well after 9-11. Bush acknowledges that the first thing he did when he was finally escorted to safety by the Secret Service (the Secret Service should have removed him from the school room immediately per protocol) is call his dad. His father, I am sure, would have reacted with some true leadership. Days later, Bush focussed on ranting about Saddam. Did you know that the FBI supervisors that squashed the reports from Arizona agents clearly indicating that Al Queda could be training terrorists at flight schools (reported at least 2 months before the attacks) were not only not disciplined, they were promoted?

Clearly, on 9-11 itself, one would think that the leader of the free world would aggresively lead when told that the nation was under attack. Bush didn't. He didn't ask if the military was responding. He didn't cancel his appearance to read a story about little goats. He didn't order a military response from Andrews Air Force base (less than 5 minute scramble time) to protect Washington. When the Air Force finally scrambled it did it from Georgia. Bush did absolutely nothing. Such strong leadership resulted in the 3rd plane hitting the Pentagon.

[MMMMMM]

"It stated that Bin Ladin planned to hijack airplanes.Now a responsible leader might have taken counter terror measures."

Countermeasures, hmmm...like what, exactly?

"At the very least, Bush should have ordered the NSA, the CIA, and the FBI to coordinate data."

At that time, weren't the CIA and FBI prevented by law from sharing information (the Patriot Act may later have changed this)?

Is this your only suggestion for what Bush could have done to prevent the terror attacks on 9/11?

[Randy_Refeld]

I will say the elder George Bush stayed the course on economic issues (not extending unemployment benefits) that possibly cost him the election in 1992.

Randy Refeld

[jokerswild]

Yes and no. The CIA and FBI were prevented from sharing information with each other. They were not prevented from briefing the President. The CIA and FBI can offer intelligence to the President, and he or a delegated 3rd party (such as the National Security advisor) could have collated that information. Certainly chatter picked up by the NSA, the FBI warnings 2 months prior, and warnings to the CIA from Israeli and Russian intelligence could have been addressed. Bush could have asked the FBI to report regarding known Al Queda operatives and domestic surveillance of suspected cells. Moussaoui (sic) was already in custody in Minnesota. He could have ordered the treasury department and the IRS to report any suspicous wire transfers. This alone would have identified Atta as a suspect. Transactions larger than $10,000 are reported by law. Atta recieved a 100k wire transfer from a Pakistani intelligence officer (to Atta within the USA) one week prior to 9-11. It probably would take the NSA a few hours to come back with a list of suspicious transactions. The CIA monitors stock market puts from overseas. UAL had an exponentially larger than average amount of puts placed on its stock from a subsidiary of Duestche Bank formerly run by Buzz Krongard. Krongard was a high level CIA officer that I believe was 3rd in line to DCI. Warnings could have been shared with airports. The military could have been placed on alert status. The power of the President of the USA to act is almost endless.

Bush did nothing. He did nothing the day of the attacks, and he did nothing but badger the intelligence community to come back with Saddam as an answer afterwards. This is legitimate criticism. Bush has held no one accountable to date other than Bin Ladin and Saddam. He quit pursuing Bin Ladin and focussed on Iraq contrary to all evidence. He stands accused of lying to the American public regarding Iraq. Almost a thousand Americans are now dead. The threat of Al Queda attacks is greater. Thousands of innocent Iraqis are dead. The public is out a minimumm of 100 billion dollars in tax money while Bush coddles the Saudis and the Pakistanis. At the same time, his cronies in the oil business make billions from the taxpayers. The same companies also refuse to account to the UN for billions from the Iraqi fund established by Presidential executive order.

The only proof of nuclear technology being shared in the region comes again from Pakistan. A Pakistani scientist has admitted exporting nuclear technology to Libya, and North Korea. That scientist has not been punished by Musharif. Musharif is a dictator for life that came to power by a military coup. This alone is a damning indictment of Middle East policy. Rice went on television and had the stupidity to state that no one in the National Security netowrk had ever imagined that terrorists would use airplanes as bombs. This has been proven false. Even if the scenario had not been outlined previously by US intelligence officials in recent history (it had) prior to 9-11, it doesn't take a genius to realize that Japanese kamikazis attacked American vessels in WWII using airplanes as bombs.

Bush now blames the intelligence community for Iraq.
The CIA has responded by the publication of Imperial Hubris, and permitting damning photographs to be removed from Abu Gharib.

The USA is stuck fighting an insurgency that has no end in site, while the military is undermanned. All in all, Bush's policies and reaction to 9-11 stand as gross failures.

[superleeds]

The very cynical among us might point to Iraq.