Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Forget about the infamous Aug. 6th daily briefing, the gang that couldn't shot straight were given multiple warnings going back to April.

That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.


http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/op ... l?_r=2&hp=" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Eichenwald is playing classic Monday morning QB with lots of "ifs" and "maybes" peppering this article. I don't doubt that the CIA had credible evidence that something was going down, but without something specific what do you do as president? Shut down the airports and all mass transit until the CIA "connects the dots"? Can you imagine the public outcry if the prez shuts down infrastructure, then tells the public "trust me, something is going on, but we don't exactly know who, when, or where"? You can't wait for perfect information, but this doesn't sound like it was actionable without potential targets. We couldn't rely on Homeland Security since they weren't even created yet.

ASUG8 wrote:Eichenwald is playing classic Monday morning QB with lots of "ifs" and "maybes" peppering this article. I don't doubt that the CIA had credible evidence that something was going down, but without something specific what do you do as president? Shut down the airports and all mass transit until the CIA "connects the dots"? Can you imagine the public outcry if the prez shuts down infrastructure, then tells the public "trust me, something is going on, but we don't exactly know who, when, or where"? You can't wait for perfect information, but this doesn't sound like it was actionable without potential targets. We couldn't rely on Homeland Security since they weren't even created yet.

And there hadn't BEEN a 9/11 type event prior to that, so there wasn't a demonstrable reason to take the actions preemptively that you describe above.

...but Bush...

SDHornet wrote:...but Bush...

Obama has deftly figured out a way to avoid this type of controversy....just don't attend your own daily briefings!

SDHornet wrote:...but Bush...

So Bush gets a pass because Obama has fucked up?

kalm wrote:

SDHornet wrote:...but Bush...

So Bush gets a pass because Obama has fucked up?

Go read G8's post and get back to us.

SDHornet wrote:

kalm wrote:
So Bush gets a pass because Obama has fucked up?

Go read G8's post and get back to us.

None of us know the amount of detail the intelligence agencies had, but as the article states, there were CIA employees considering quitting so as not to get blamed when the shit came down. And evidently, we had enough intelligence on WMD's to be wasting resources on a possible invasion of Iraq at the same time. And this after the Clinton administration gave warnings and Richard Clark was running around the WH with his hair on fire.

Amazing how much some of you want to give Bush a pass on this. In a few more years, he'll be joining Reagan on the Conk Rushmore...

ASUG8 wrote:Eichenwald is playing classic Monday morning QB with lots of "ifs" and "maybes" peppering this article. I don't doubt that the CIA had credible evidence that something was going down, but without something specific what do you do as president? Shut down the airports and all mass transit until the CIA "connects the dots"? Can you imagine the public outcry if the prez shuts down infrastructure, then tells the public "trust me, something is going on, but we don't exactly know who, when, or where"? You can't wait for perfect information, but this doesn't sound like it was actionable without potential targets. We couldn't rely on Homeland Security since they weren't even created yet.

THIS.

End of story.

kalm wrote:

SDHornet wrote: Go read G8's post and get back to us.

None of us know the amount of detail the intelligence agencies had, but as the article states, there were CIA employees considering quitting so as not to get blamed when the shit came down. And evidently, we had enough intelligence on WMD's to be wasting resources on a possible invasion of Iraq at the same time. And this after the Clinton administration gave warnings and Richard Clark was running around the WH with his hair on fire.

Amazing how much some of you want to give Bush a pass on this. In a few more years, he'll be joining Reagan on the Conk Rushmore...

Don't misread my post as giving Bush a pass or being apologetic on his behalf. Hell, Clinton lobbed some missiles at Saddam and was rattling his sabre about WMD's in Iraq long before W even took office. My point was simply that ANY president past or present who was presented with such vague intel regarding the who's, where's, why's and wherefore's would be challenged to make the proper call.

AZGrizFan wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:Eichenwald is playing classic Monday morning QB with lots of "ifs" and "maybes" peppering this article. I don't doubt that the CIA had credible evidence that something was going down, but without something specific what do you do as president? Shut down the airports and all mass transit until the CIA "connects the dots"? Can you imagine the public outcry if the prez shuts down infrastructure, then tells the public "trust me, something is going on, but we don't exactly know who, when, or where"? You can't wait for perfect information, but this doesn't sound like it was actionable without potential targets. We couldn't rely on Homeland Security since they weren't even created yet.

And there hadn't BEEN a 9/11 type event prior to that, so there wasn't a demonstrable reason to take the actions preemptively that you describe above.

Well to be fair, there was Pearl Harbor and we might have taken a howitzer to a knife fight on that one.

Wow...Kalmagenda doing the daily mediamatters social media "He said, she said" post.

And people responded.

Congrats, Kalm.

I nominate you for the 2014 UNHWildcat Operative of the Year award.

Tomorrow: Cheney Orchestrated 9/11 To Solidify The CIA's Control

ASUG8 wrote:

kalm wrote:
None of us know the amount of detail the intelligence agencies had, but as the article states, there were CIA employees considering quitting so as not to get blamed when the shit came down. And evidently, we had enough intelligence on WMD's to be wasting resources on a possible invasion of Iraq at the same time. And this after the Clinton administration gave warnings and Richard Clark was running around the WH with his hair on fire.

Amazing how much some of you want to give Bush a pass on this. In a few more years, he'll be joining Reagan on the Conk Rushmore...

Don't misread my post as giving Bush a pass or being apologetic on his behalf. Hell, Clinton lobbed some missiles at Saddam and was rattling his sabre about WMD's in Iraq long before W even took office. My point was simply that ANY president past or present who was presented with such vague intel regarding the who's, where's, why's and wherefore's would be challenged to make the proper call.

I don't disagree. This is simply new information that the CIA was aware of the threat and the administration should have been well before Aug 6th. What actions did the administration take once it was on their horizon? Why was Iraq considered more of worthy endeavor?

travelinman67 wrote:Wow...Kalmagenda doing the daily mediamatters social media "He said, she said" post.

And people responded.

Congrats, Kalm.

I nominate you for the 2014 UNHWildcat Operative of the Year award.

Tomorrow: Cheney Orchestrated 9/11 To Solidify The CIA's Control

It was a Washington Post piece that linked to the NYT. But keep on propping up the Bush administration. Like I said, his legacy is improving by the day.

kalm wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:Wow...Kalmagenda doing the daily mediamatters social media "He said, she said" post.

And people responded.

Congrats, Kalm.

I nominate you for the 2014 UNHWildcat Operative of the Year award.

Tomorrow: Cheney Orchestrated 9/11 To Solidify The CIA's Control

It was a Washington Post piece that linked to the NYT. But keep on propping up the Bush administration. Like I said, his legacy is improving by the day.

Yes, it is. Much like Obama's is going into the shitter by the day.

kalm wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
Don't misread my post as giving Bush a pass or being apologetic on his behalf. Hell, Clinton lobbed some missiles at Saddam and was rattling his sabre about WMD's in Iraq long before W even took office. My point was simply that ANY president past or present who was presented with such vague intel regarding the who's, where's, why's and wherefore's would be challenged to make the proper call.

I don't disagree. This is simply new information that the CIA was aware of the threat and the administration should have been well before Aug 6th. What actions did the administration take once it was on their horizon? Why was Iraq considered more of worthy endeavor?

Maybe because we'd been bombing them for a decade and he was paying $25k to suicide bombers families? Did we know who Osama bin Laden was before 9-11? On the scale that we knew Saddam? Clinton had him but passed on him

kalm wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:Wow...Kalmagenda doing the daily mediamatters social media "He said, she said" post.

And people responded.

Congrats, Kalm.

I nominate you for the 2014 UNHWildcat Operative of the Year award.

Tomorrow: Cheney Orchestrated 9/11 To Solidify The CIA's Control

It was a Washington Post piece that linked to the NYT. But keep on propping up the Bush administration. Like I said, his legacy is improving by the day.

Fuck you, Operative.

I never defended the Bush administration. Find one article I posted...one!

You are a pathetic liberal tool.

Put up or shut up.

travelinman67 wrote:

kalm wrote:
It was a Washington Post piece that linked to the NYT. But keep on propping up the Bush administration. Like I said, his legacy is improving by the day.

Fuck you, Operative.

I never defended the Bush administration. Find one article I posted...one!

You are a pathetic liberal tool.

Put up or shut up.

You're projecting again. Seek help.

Does the report mention anything about Clinton fumbling the OBL ball

kalm wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
Fuck you, Operative.

I never defended the Bush administration. Find one article I posted...one!

You are a pathetic liberal tool.

Put up or shut up.

You're projecting again. Seek help.

Negative. You throw around false statements to discredit critics. Your content is SOLELY politically motivated. Stop wasting everyone's time.

travelinman67 wrote:

kalm wrote:
You're projecting again. Seek help.

Negative. You throw around false statements to discredit critics. Your content is SOLELY politically motivated. Stop wasting everyone's time.

Please list all false statements I haven't owned on this message board.



If you're not getting paid by someone to post the shit you come up with, I'm seriously worried for you...

kalm wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:Wow...Kalmagenda doing the daily mediamatters social media "He said, she said" post.

And people responded.

Congrats, Kalm.

I nominate you for the 2014 UNHWildcat Operative of the Year award.

Tomorrow: Cheney Orchestrated 9/11 To Solidify The CIA's Control

It was a Washington Post piece that linked to the NYT. But keep on propping up the Bush administration. Like I said, his legacy is improving by the day.

False statements. I have not propped up the Bush Admin...ever.

You, are a liar.

travelinman67 wrote:

kalm wrote:
It was a Washington Post piece that linked to the NYT. But keep on propping up the Bush administration. Like I said, his legacy is improving by the day.

False statements. I have not propped up the Bush Admin...ever.

You, are a liar.

You're passive aggressively propping them up in this very thread.

kalm wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
False statements. I have not propped up the Bush Admin...ever.

You, are a liar.

You're passive aggressively propping them up in this very thread.

Negative. The Senate report is a pissing match between Feinstein/Reid and the CIA. Publicly releasing it compromised national security. You and the other MediaMatters operatives are trying to spin this into a Blame Bush/Cheney talking point.
You are contributing to a futile cause through thoughtless ideologic rhetoric.

And for the record, the torture methods detailed in the report are laughable when compared to pre-9/11 interrogation methods practiced under the Clinton and Bush 1 administrations (especially Bush 1).

Do more homework, speak less.