Will Obama just let Fargo drown?

[bssb]

Originally Posted by buckman

So now 9/11 was the result of Republican policies????

I mean we all know the Republicans caused Katrina

Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US was the President's Daily Brief given to U.S. President George W. Bush on August 6, 2001. The President's Daily Brief (PDB) is a brief of important classified information on national security collected by various U.S. intelligence agencies given to the president and a select group of senior officials. The brief warned of terrorism threats from Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda over a month before the September 11, 2001 attacks.[1]

[Cool Beans]

Originally Posted by bssb

Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US was the President's Daily Brief given to U.S. President George W. Bush on August 6, 2001. The President's Daily Brief (PDB) is a brief of important classified information on national security collected by various U.S. intelligence agencies given to the president and a select group of senior officials. The brief warned of terrorism threats from Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda over a month before the September 11, 2001 attacks.[1]

You're kidding right? Do you realize how many credible threats the president hears each day in his "security briefings".

"Good morning Mr. President, today we have a unstable situation in Venezuela, we also have a destabilization problem in Iran, we've got threats from Iran, Russia, Pakistan, and just this morning, Kim Jong Il, said he "wants to make a pudding from the bones of Americans."

[bssb]

Originally Posted by Cool Beans

You're kidding right? Do you realize how many credible threats the president hears each day in his "security briefings".

"Good morning Mr. President, today we have a unstable situation in Venezuela, we also have a destabilization problem in Iran, we've got threats from Iran, Russia, Pakistan, and just this morning, Kim Jong Il, said he "wants to make a pudding from the bones of Americans."

wow, didn't realize you were in on the classified daily security briefings.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Cool Beans

You're kidding right? Do you realize how many credible threats the president hears each day in his "security briefings".

"Good morning Mr. President, today we have a unstable situation in Venezuela, we also have a destabilization problem in Iran, we've got threats from Iran, Russia, Pakistan, and just this morning, Kim Jong Il, said he "wants to make a pudding from the bones of Americans."

Yes, and how many of these threats had pretty good intel stating intent to attack within the United States?

Perhaps highlighting how they dropped the ball was Rice's statement that "had we had any idea" when there were memos from months previous. Talk about spin...

Now I believe that Clinton can and should have done more against Bin Laden, but the rate at which Bush simply ignored the issue...and then used 9/11 as an excuse to do a complete 180 has given this Country a terrible case of whiplash we're going to be recovering from for at least another decade if not longer.

-spence

[Cool Beans]

Originally Posted by spence

Now I believe that Clinton can and should have done more against Bin Laden, but the rate at which Bush simply ignored the issue...and then used 9/11 as an excuse to do a complete 180 has given this Country a terrible case of whiplash we're going to be recovering from for at least another decade if not longer.
-spence

Both Clinton and Bush, were just following the standard game plan of cat and mouse, that we've been playing with them since Carter. Even with intel that they have a plan and want to initiate it, it is difficult to initiate a preemptive strike against a uninitiated plan. Lots of people have plans, or would like to cause us harm, but most of those never get past the planning stages. If you take action against a foreign country, even with proof of intent, is is virtually impossible to get the support of the rest of the world, and without our allies support, most in congress will not support such action. I'll give Clinton the benefit of dought on this, and say that, I am sure they both wanted to do more than they did, but hit head on with congress and the UN and were unable to do more.

It is a sad fact that, even with the intel, we were unable to properly react to the threat, other than a few warnings to the airlines of increased possible threat. It is a tough balancing act, of trying to protect ourselves and over reacting or under reacting to possible threats.

It's a shame how much polls and popular opinion get in the way of national security, knowing that much of the facts can't be given out to the public without tipping our hand, but without this support many politicians are too afraid to act.

just the opinions of an old retired navy guy.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Cool Beans

Both Clinton and Bush, were just following the standard game plan of cat and mouse, that we've been playing with them since Carter. Even with intel that they have a plan and want to initiate it, it is difficult to initiate a preemptive strike against a uninitiated plan.

But under Clinton and Bush we weren't playing cat and mouse. After the 1993 WTC bombing there was a series of attacks against US interests that were not motivated by the political militancy we've seen before. These should have been taken more seriously but they weren't. Yes, I have the blessing of hindsight, but that's what I thought the CIA, NSA and State Department were there for!

I doubt 9/11 could have necessarily been averted so late in the planning, but it seems like our Government wasn't even watching the game.

-spence