Terrorist bank records

[Matthew]

I thought I was just being dense, I didn't understand that either.

Can't speak for VeeP and don't really agree with his point of view, but the way I interpreted that statement was that since there have been no more "9/11-type" attacks since, that's a sign that we DO need Patriot Act-style surveillance and related programs.

 

[ETA123]

Can't speak for VeeP and don't really agree with his point of view, but the way I interpreted that statement was that since there have been no more "9/11-type" attacks since, that's a sign that we DO need Patriot Act-style surveillance and related programs.

The problem is that we didn't need Patriot Act style surveillance to stop 9/11 either. What we needed is a government that didn't ignore daily briefs that specifically warned "Al Queda determined to strike in US" and had no cabinet level discussions regarding terrorism until after it had occurred.

Of course, there's also the fact that there were no "9/11-type" attacks BEFORE 9/11 either.

I just find his statements inconsistent with what the facts show.

 

[VeeP]

So, please clarify for me what you mean by "after five incident-free years, we're finally coming to the realization that hey, allowing such programs to slip quietly into perpetuity may not be such a good idea."

I thought I was just being dense, I didn't understand that either.

Can't speak for VeeP and don't really agree with his point of view, but the way I interpreted that statement was that since there have been no more "9/11-type" attacks since, that's a sign that we DO need Patriot Act-style surveillance and related programs.

Thanks, Matthew... although I actually meant the converse... maybe it's time to consider whether such programs should continue or not.

That said, I don't buy that any of this is a big "surprise" to anyone, particularly our "lawmakers". There's been ample time for these programs to be outed previously and even now that they've become so "scandalous", it would appear there's no push at the congressional level to put an immediate stop to them. Why is that? Could it be (*gasp*) that there's some validity to them?

My position on this stuff is that maybe (just maybe) before we devolve into a gaggle of outraged hand-wringers and Chicken Littles we should hear more details. I, for one, don't know whether these programs have been effective or not. My hunch is that they probably wouldn't have continued had they not been bearing any fruit... but that is NOT an endorsement of them. I can't fully evaluate something without more details. And I happen to think that's a perfectly rational position to take at this juncture.

ETA: Dude, you really need to quit assuming I'm mounting some wholesale defense of what they're doing. I'm not. The only "factual" portion my original supposition was the 'incident-free' part (BTW, incident-free = no foreign attacks against the continental US). I kinda thought that went without saying. Of course there's been other incidents world-wide since 9/11.



Geez, it really sucks to be ganged up on (well, usually :wink.

 

[VeeP]

What we needed is a government that didn't ignore daily briefs that specifically warned "Al Queda determined to strike in US" and had no cabinet level discussions regarding terrorism until after it had occurred.

I'll agree with you there, but don't forget to delve back a bit further and spread a little blame that direction. Let's not forget Sandy Berger stuffing his pants at the National Archives (and I don't think it was for the bulge!).

Of course, there's also the fact that there were no "9/11-type" attacks BEFORE 9/11 either.

No, just a bunch of dress rehearsals all over the world and the '93 bombing of the WTC.

 

[ETA123]

I'll agree with you there, but don't forget to delve back a bit further and spread a little blame that direction. Let's not forget Sandy Berger stuffing his pants at the National Archives (and I don't think it was for the bulge!).

No, just a bunch of dress rehearsals all over the world and the '93 bombing of the WTC.

Sandy Berger was cleared of that charge if you will recall. http://mediamatters.org/items/200408020008 (not to mention that charge has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand, since it occurred well after 9/11). How something that was alleged to have occurred after 9/11 is delving back further is beyond me. Note that Fox (to return to an earlier topic) continued to smear Berger even after he was cleared.

The perpetrators of the first attack on the WTC were captured and convicted. An attack, I might add, which occurred only a month after Clinton took office. Why is it that you, as most of your political brethren do, attempt to blame Clinton for something that happened a month after he took office but place no blame or accountability on Bush for what happened 8 months after HE took office?

Oddly, no such capture has happened with the perpetrators of 9/11.

 

[VeeP]

Sandy Berger was cleared of that charge if you will recall.

"Cleared".... that is until he copped a plea a year later for having broken the law: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/08/berger.sentenced/

(Nice "balanced" outfit you chose to cite, BTW)

I'm not going to bother explaining how he relates to pre-9/11 activities. Any idiot knows the "stuffing" occured during the 9/11 Commission investigation.

Why is it that you, as most of your political brethren do, attempt to blame Clinton for something that happened a month after he took office but place no blame or accountability on Bush for what happened 8 months after HE took office?

I AGREED with you that the Bush admin was at fault. Read again!

 

[RideRocket]

Oddly, no such capture has happened with the perpetrators of 9/11.

That's kind of hard to do when all that's left of them is a greasy shit stain in NYC, the Pentagon, and a field outside of Somerset, PA.

Besides, shortly after the attack is when we went after the Taliban in Afghanistan for harboring al Quaeda terrorists responsible for planning 9/11. We even were willing to leave them in power as long as they handed over the al Quaeda terrorists.

To date, upwards of 3/4 of the al Quaeda leadership have been killed or apprehended.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

To date, upwards of 3/4 of the al Quaeda leadership have been killed or apprehended.

So say Bush/Blair who also told us Iraq was full of WMDs and was acting in cahoots with al Qaeda.

 

[RideRocket]

So say Bush/Blair who also told us Iraq was full of WMDs and was acting in cahoots with al Qaeda.

As did Clinton, his entire staff, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Russia, France, etc. who all believed he had WMD.

You need to get over this belief that Bush purposely lied to the American public about Iraq's WMD. Amazing how easy it is to forget that so many other countries and previous administrations believed the same thing concerning Saddam and his desire to develop WMDs. Saddam had a desire to continue to develop and use such weapons throughout his entire dictatorship.

Can you honestly say that Saddam had nothing to hide, no WMDs, no banned items under the UN mandates when he kept refusing to allow weapons inspector's access to various sites? Seems like awfully suspicious behavior for someone with nothing to hide.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

As did Clinton, his entire staff, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Russia, France, etc. who all believed he had WMD.

So say those who are eager to spread the blame and dilute the sting of the humiliating error the U.S./U.K. committed. Further, if Iraq did indeed possess the WMDs, would Bush have been willing to share the credit about their discovery with the previous U.S. administration and other governments? I think not. Blaming Clinton or anyone else for the error won't help now.

You need to get over this belief that Bush purposely lied to the American public about Iraq's WMD. Amazing how easy it is to forget that so many other countries and previous administrations believed the same thing concerning Saddam and his desire to develop WMDs. Saddam had a desire to continue to develop and use such weapons throughout his entire dictatorship.

Bush/Blair cherry picked whatever intel was necessary to support their push for pre-emptive war while pandering to voters' fears. And in the aftermath of the failure to find any WMD's, no amount of bluster over what Saddam might have done justifies the illegal, ill-advised and costly invasion and occupation of another sovereign nation on either false or mistaken pretenses.

Can you honestly say that Saddam had nothing to hide, no WMDs, no banned items under the UN mandates when he kept refusing to allow weapons inspector's access to various sites? Seems like awfully suspicious behavior for someone with nothing to hide.

The U.N. arms inspectors found nothing when they returned to inspect Iraq in 2003. But Blix was brushed aside by Bush/Blair who said they knew better. I can remember Cheney lecturing Congress that the threat of Saddam's WMDs was so onerous that had days, not weeks, to debate a war resolution.

No WMDs were found in Iraq despite a thorough search after the invasion. The war was staged on pretenses either deliberately falsified or so badly mistaken that it beggars belief. Either reduces Bush's credibility to zero in my eyes.

As for Saddam, the guy was obviously a brutal dictator, a brutal dictator the U.S. supported when convenient and villified when convenient. But in 2003 he was a brutal dictator without WMDs or the capability of making them.

 

[VeeP]

To date, upwards of 3/4 of the al Quaeda leadership have been killed or apprehended.

So say Bush/Blair who also told us Iraq was full of WMDs and was acting in cahoots with al Qaeda.

Pretty tough to find current info, but in terms of al Qaeda in Iraq as of 10/2005:

http://billroggio.com/archives/2005/10/aqiz_org_chart_1.php

"The May version of the organizational chart contained 42 individuals. At the time, 10 were listed as killed, 18 captured and 14 wanted." ... "Since the release of the May version, three more lieutenants, Abdullah Abu Azzam, Suleiman Darwash and Abu Talha were killed or captured. This equates to three-quarters of the known al Qaeda command structure being removed from the battlefield."

 

[madame_zora]

Pretty tough to find current info, but in terms of al Qaeda in Iraq as of 10/2005:

http://billroggio.com/archives/2005/10/aqiz_org_chart_1.php

"The May version of the organizational chart contained 42 individuals. At the time, 10 were listed as killed, 18 captured and 14 wanted." ... "Since the release of the May version, three more lieutenants, Abdullah Abu Azzam, Suleiman Darwash and Abu Talha were killed or captured. This equates to three-quarters of the known al Qaeda command structure being removed from the battlefield."

And still, magically, no Bin Laden.

Lest we forget, the Bin Laden family and the BUSH family have been friends and business partners since the 80s. The bullshit factors alone make this story all but incomprehensible. It's a good story they're trying to sell, but I ain't buying.

Yes, of COURSE previous administrations had their eyes on the goings on in the middle east and no doubt had taken the position that overestimating the enemy was better than underestimating them. Still, for some reason, they did not invade another sovereign nation who did NOT attack us! We might take a lesson from them rather than trying to spread the blame to them for THIS administration's horrible decisions.

 

[VeeP]

And still, magically, no Bin Laden.

Even that won't satisfy some people.

 

[ETA123]

As did Clinton, his entire staff, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Russia, France, etc. who all believed he had WMD.

You need to get over this belief that Bush purposely lied to the American public about Iraq's WMD. Amazing how easy it is to forget that so many other countries and previous administrations believed the same thing concerning Saddam and his desire to develop WMDs. Saddam had a desire to continue to develop and use such weapons throughout his entire dictatorship.

Can you honestly say that Saddam had nothing to hide, no WMDs, no banned items under the UN mandates when he kept refusing to allow weapons inspector's access to various sites? Seems like awfully suspicious behavior for someone with nothing to hide.

So tell us, why did Colin Powell say, as a representative of this administration, in February of 2001:

"We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq"

This was in 2001. So, this administration obviously did NOT believe there were WMD's until they needed to perpetrate that lie to further their agenda. You might also want to ask yourself why that quote existed on the State Department website until it became widely publicized, after which it was scrubbed. Hell, I posted on several forums linking to the State Department listing of this quote until they removed it to cover their asses.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

has a mirror of their original site, along with the text.

As to Bin Laden, Clinton had plans to go after him, he emphasized the need to go after him . . . http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...ode=&contentId=A62725-2001Dec18&notFound=true

It should be noted that he was accused of "wagging the dog" and attempting to deflect from the Lewinski scandal when he tried to go after Bin Laden.

 

[ETA123]

"Cleared".... that is until he copped a plea a year later for having broken the law: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/08/berger.sentenced/

(Nice "balanced" outfit you chose to cite, BTW)

Ummm, Media Matters compares news sources and points out the differences, if you were being honest, you'd not that they were referring to a WALL STREET JOURNAL article. Now anyone who considers the Wall Street Journal to be biased would be absolutely correct, one glance at their editorital page shows them for the administration lapdog that they are. Even THEY reported the actual facts.

The FACTS, if you chose to actually read them, are that NO ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS were removed from the archives. His only "crime" was taking copies of original documents. Nothing was altered, nothing was concealed. Had you actually paid attention to the FACTS, you would know that.

 

[ETA123]

To date, upwards of 3/4 of the al Quaeda leadership have been killed or apprehended.

A statement put forth with NO SUBSTANTIATION. Did you know they also captured "Chemical" Ali a dozen times or so, and killed the "Second in Command" at least 1/2 dozen times?

That is so meaningless as to be laughable. Al Queda membership has continually increased. Saying 3/4 means nothing when they conceal information about why they capture and detain, and report no substantiating facts other than just their assertions (which have proven time and again to be false).

Little hint: Because Scotty McLellan said it doesn't make it so.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Little hint: Because Scotty McLellan said it doesn't make it so.

That is about the quotablest quote I've heard in a while. Never misunderestimate the sliminess of the executive cabinet.

 

[ETA123]

That is about the quotablest quote I've heard in a while. Never misunderestimate the sliminess of the executive cabinet.

Of course, now that Tony Snow is there, it'll be even worse. He'll be fellated by his associates at Fox (yup, I'm bashing Fox again, but when you have direct ties between a "news" agency and a government, you have a willful manipulation what is displayed to the public. . . as Bush himself said, you have to "catapult the propaganda."

 

[DC_DEEP]

No offense to anyone intended, this is not an attack. Please bear with me.

How many "9/11-style attacks" on US soil occurred pre-patriot act? I will not count the OKC bombing... that was not perpetrated by a foreign entity, so would not have been affected by patriot act legislation. Ok, yeah, one that I can think of... and nowhere near the same magnitude. If the fellows who are actually charged with the safety of our country had been doing their jobs, instead of engaging in kindergarten playground bullying and snobbery, the 9/11 tragedy could have been nipped one year in the bud, with minimal or no loss of US lives, with no McCarthy-ish intrusions on the citizens here. Dammit, every single one of the 9/11 conspirators was already on CIA watchlists. How is it that they made it through customs on their way here, enrolled in flight school, learned first how to fly a small plane, then A BIG COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT, then managed to get tickets and go through security and get on those flights? How could so many agencies and our executive and legislative branches, miss SO MANY BLATANT CLUES???

As far as bank records go, why can no one see the difference between 1) the government just simply TAKING all the records of all the banks, and 2) requiring the banks to report suspicious transactions (hmm, something like, uh, comparisons of quarterly reports where the account holder has lots of deposit and transfer activity, but no withholding statements from an employer...)

All I'm saying is that the US government, in protecting itself and its citizens, can use methods that are less invasive, more cost-efficient, and actually more effective than the Gestapo/SS tactics that they are increasingly using.

I cannot fathom how this current administration has any defenders or apologists at all, whatsoever.

 

[ETA123]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Ooops, double post, sorry.
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]