Ron 10 #176 January 7, 2005 QuoteQuote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the US you are innocent till proven quilty. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh? Not entirely true is it? Sometimes the boundaries get blurred ...... by holding people offshore for example (still on US turf but ...say in Cuba) Tony They don't fall into the Geneva Conventions. It's legal."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #177 January 7, 2005 QuoteWhy was it not used? Tested or not, it was procedure. If it was not implemented, it was negligence or incompetence. Ask Clinton"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #178 January 7, 2005 QuoteYou mentioned Pane Stewarts plwne: 1. It was AFTER 9/11 so new procedures were in place. Let's be specific, Ron. Payne stewart died in October of 1999. How is this before September 11. 2001? QuoteGo fish. Yup. Back at you.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #179 January 7, 2005 QuoteLet's be specific, Ron. Payne stewart died in October of 1999. How is this before September 11. 2001? OK ya got me there. I was wrong in my timeline. See how a person can admit when they are wrong and face up to it? I didn't blame anyone but myself..."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #180 January 7, 2005 Quote See how a person can admit when they are wrong and face up to it? You admit neglegence then? Or are you claiming Shrub was merely incompetent?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #181 January 7, 2005 QuoteQuote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- See how a person can admit when they are wrong and face up to it? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You admit neglegence then? Or are you claiming Shrub was merely incompetent? No, I am saying I screwed up. Who is being creative with the editing now? Bush had an issue. It was small threat and we had a plan in place...(As proved by your Stewart story). It did not work well. You want to blame someone? Blame Clinton for not having a better plan when he had the WH for 8 years. Afetr all it was his plan that failed on 9/11, not Bush's."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #182 January 7, 2005 QuoteQuote Staying focused on Afghanistan then, you're the one who's saying you don't understand why we went to war after 9/11 when the effect "objectively" (your words) was a 60% spike in US daily deaths. Again, you are taking me out of context. I absolutely am not taking you out of context, this is the discussion we had when I first called your question deranged. There's a direct quote from you that questions why we went to war citing the 60% spike in deaths involved per day. It's 100% in context and gets directly to the core of the kind of irrationality you're espousing. You asked several questions but that was one of them and I'm entitled to cite it. Here's the full quote: QuoteFrom an objective perspective, the attacks on WTC were a 60% spike in the national daily death poll. Why is the president so eager to go to war to avenge it, to the extent of repeatedly lying to the public about Iraq'a connections with the September 11 attacks. But, is quite reluctant to answer questions concerning the attack, and why SOP was not followed with respect to NORAD. Me raising the issue of Afghanistan as the immediate conflict resulting directly from 9/11 is entirely reasonable, you're the one taking an entire war out of context not me taking your question out of context. There are so many tricks in your question that it's unbelievable you'd complain about a mere quote. From downplaying the effect of an attack, ignoring that it was a spearhead of a terrorist campaign, citing revenge not national security as a motivation, conveniently skipping an entire regional conflict and implying that the answer isn't obvious and self evident. In the process you also misrepresent what the administration actually said, they explicitly said there was no Iraqi connection to 9/11, the opposite of what you claim. It's been explained a thousand times for both conflicts, that you don't like the answer doesn't mean the question should be repeated ad nauseam. Finally you use your outlandish distortion to raise some pet peeve w.r.t. SOP an NORAD as if you've made a point about the lack of justification when you haven't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #183 January 7, 2005 QuoteNo, I am saying I screwed up. Who is being creative with the editing now? Bush had an issue. It was small threat and we had a plan in place...(As proved by your Stewart story). It did not work well. The SOP was in place. It worked with Payne Stewart's jet. It was followed by multiple fighters who were there to shoot it down should it head towards a populated area. That it was not actually shot down indicates nothing since the plane did not crash into a populated area. QuoteYou want to blame someone? Blame Clinton for not having a better plan when he had the WH for 8 years. Afetr all it was his plan that failed on 9/11, not Bush's. Clinton was not at the helm that day. Clinton had nothing to do with NORAD not acting. That is something that requires the current president.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #184 January 7, 2005 I stand corrected Dorbie. What my quote should have said was: "Why is the president so eager to go to war in Iraq to avenge it, to the extent of repeatedly lying to the public about Iraq'a connections with the September 11 attacks?" My point was that he has continuously used the WTC attacks in the very same manner that A.H. used the Reichstag fire. He has been far more eager to go to war over the attacks than he has been willing to actually investigate the attacks to see what really happened. As for Shrubs's actions or lack thereof on September 11, 2001, the questions are still valid an unanswered.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #185 January 7, 2005 QuoteThe SOP was in place. It worked with Payne Stewart's jet. It was followed by multiple fighters who were there to shoot it down should it head towards a populated area. That it was not actually shot down indicates nothing since the plane did not crash into a populated area. Pane stewarts palne also was in flight for monre than one hour when it was intercepted. 9/11 there was 45 min between the first and last brash, and multiple targets. Get over it. QuoteClinton was not at the helm that day. Clinton had nothing to do with NORAD not acting. That is something that requires the current president. It was Clintons plan. Like I said I dont expect a new President to change all the plans in less than 9 mths. Move on."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #186 January 7, 2005 QuoteI stand corrected Dorbie. What my quote should have said was: "Why is the president so eager to go to war in Iraq to avenge it, to the extent of repeatedly lying to the public about Iraq'a connections with the September 11 attacks?" My point was that he has continuously used the WTC attacks in the very same manner that A.H. used the Reichstag fire. He has been far more eager to go to war over the attacks than he has been willing to actually investigate the attacks to see what really happened. As for Shrubs's actions or lack thereof on September 11, 2001, the questions are still valid an unanswered. It was made clear by the administration that Iraq was not directly about 9/11. I really don't know what more they can do than explicitly state that they have nothing to link Iraq to 9/11 before the conflict. You can keep making the accusation and ignore the well documented facts but that won't make it true. When asking a question it helps to be objective and open minded. If you ask a question and ignore all answers and evidence other than what you want to hear then you're going to think there are a lot of questions unanswered in life, especially with your world view. P.S. w.r.t. investigating what happened there are two classes of actions that are of primary interest to us, the enemy actions and ours. We pretty much have the former down and it's actually easy for the administration to know what the latter is. You're talking about a witch hunt pursued to your satisfaction. You say Bush is not willing to investigate but that's not the case, it's you who wants to investigate Bush. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #187 January 7, 2005 Quote9/11 there was 45 min between the first and last brash, and multiple targets. The circumstances of 9/11 don't even begin to stress the capabliities of SOP of our air defense systems. Here try checking out some facts: "The air defense network had, on September 11th, predictable and effective procedures for dealing with just such an attack. Yet it failed to respond in a timely manner until after the attack was over, more than an hour and a half after it had started. The official timeline describes a series of events and mode of response in which the delays are spread out into a number of areas. There are failures upon failures, in what might be described as a strategy of layered failures, or failure in depth. The failures can be divided into four types. * Failures to report: Based on the official timeline, the FAA response times for reporting the deviating aircraft were many times longer than the prescribed times. * Failures to scramble: NORAD, once notified of the off-course aircraft, failed to scramble jets from the nearest bases. * Failures to intercept: Once airborne, interceptors failed to reach their targets because they flew at small fractions of their top speeds. * Failures to redeploy: Fighters that were airborne and within interception range of the deviating aircraft were not redeployed to pursue them. Had not there been multiple failures of each type, one or more parts of the attack could have been thwarted. NORAD had time to protect the World Trade Center even given the unbelievably late time, 8:40, when it claims to have first been notified. It had time to protect the South Tower and Washington even given its bizarre choice of bases to scramble. And it still had ample opportunity to protect both New York City and Washington even if it insisted that all interceptors fly subsonic, simply by redeploying airborne fighters." http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #188 January 7, 2005 QuoteIt was made clear by the administration that Iraq was not directly about 9/11. I really don't know what more they can do than explicitly state that they have nothing to link Iraq to 9/11 before the conflict. You can keep making the accusation and ignore the well documented facts but that won't make it true. Between 9-11-02 until the invasion, Shrub repaetedly told us how SH was partially to balme for 9-11-01. QuoteWhen asking a question it helps to be objective and open minded. If you ask a question and ignore all answers and evidence other than what you want to hear then you're going to think there are a lot of questions unanswered in life, especially with your world view. The answers should be given first. I can't be accused of ignoring them before then. Quote You say Bush is not willing to investigate but that's not the case, That is the case. He has stnewalled any attempts at an independent investigation, and withheld some of the findings of the 9/11 Commission. That is hardly showing a willingness to investigate.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #189 January 7, 2005 QuoteQuote9/11 there was 45 min between the first and last brash, and multiple targets. The circumstances of 9/11 don't even begin to stress the capabliities of SOP of our air defense systems. Here try checking out some facts: "The air defense network had, on September 11th, predictable and effective procedures for dealing with just such an attack. Yet it failed to respond in a timely manner until after the attack was over, more than an hour and a half after it had started. The official timeline describes a series of events and mode of response in which the delays are spread out into a number of areas. There are failures upon failures, in what might be described as a strategy of layered failures, or failure in depth. The failures can be divided into four types. * Failures to report: Based on the official timeline, the FAA response times for reporting the deviating aircraft were many times longer than the prescribed times. * Failures to scramble: NORAD, once notified of the off-course aircraft, failed to scramble jets from the nearest bases. * Failures to intercept: Once airborne, interceptors failed to reach their targets because they flew at small fractions of their top speeds. * Failures to redeploy: Fighters that were airborne and within interception range of the deviating aircraft were not redeployed to pursue them. Had not there been multiple failures of each type, one or more parts of the attack could have been thwarted. NORAD had time to protect the World Trade Center even given the unbelievably late time, 8:40, when it claims to have first been notified. It had time to protect the South Tower and Washington even given its bizarre choice of bases to scramble. And it still had ample opportunity to protect both New York City and Washington even if it insisted that all interceptors fly subsonic, simply by redeploying airborne fighters." http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/ I know that at least some of these "facts" are directly contradicted by statements I have heard directly from the pilots in interviews calling into question the credibility of others. Not to lend credence to this nonsense by engaging it but the golfer's plane flew at altitude with a working transponder until it ran out of fuel. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #190 January 7, 2005 QuoteThe circumstances of 9/11 don't even begin to stress the capabliities of SOP of our air defense systems. Here try checking out some facts: "The air defense network had, on September 11th, predictable and effective procedures for dealing with just such an attack. Yet it failed to respond in a timely manner until after the attack was over, more than an hour and a half after it had started. The official timeline describes a series of events and mode of response in which the delays are spread out into a number of areas. There are failures upon failures, in what might be described as a strategy of layered failures, or failure in depth. The failures can be divided into four types. * Failures to report: Based on the official timeline, the FAA response times for reporting the deviating aircraft were many times longer than the prescribed times. * Failures to scramble: NORAD, once notified of the off-course aircraft, failed to scramble jets from the nearest bases. * Failures to intercept: Once airborne, interceptors failed to reach their targets because they flew at small fractions of their top speeds. * Failures to redeploy: Fighters that were airborne and within interception range of the deviating aircraft were not redeployed to pursue them. Had not there been multiple failures of each type, one or more parts of the attack could have been thwarted. NORAD had time to protect the World Trade Center even given the unbelievably late time, 8:40, when it claims to have first been notified. It had time to protect the South Tower and Washington even given its bizarre choice of bases to scramble. And it still had ample opportunity to protect both New York City and Washington even if it insisted that all interceptors fly subsonic, simply by redeploying airborne fighters." OK so you are claiming that Bush ahd a plan, but others failed to do it correctly. So you don't see Bush at fault? I mean he had a plan and all according to you. Not his fault the FAA, NORAD, and the pilots screwed up. According to your own info it was not Bush's fault.... But you claimed it was earlier? Pick a stance and stay on topic and on one side please."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #191 January 7, 2005 QuoteQuoteIt was made clear by the administration that Iraq was not directly about 9/11. I really don't know what more they can do than explicitly state that they have nothing to link Iraq to 9/11 before the conflict. You can keep making the accusation and ignore the well documented facts but that won't make it true. Between 9-11-02 until the invasion, Shrub repaetedly told us how SH was partially to balme for 9-11-01. I guess we live in parallel universes because I specifically remember statements directly contradicting your claim and explicitly stating there was no claim of a connection. We even had official statements that discounted evidence from a foreign intelligence source of a meeting between Atta and Iraqi security (in Prague I think). So even in the face of evidence we had clear official denials of any link, something I thought rather strange at the time but I guess they didn't see the Prague claim as credible. If you're going the take fantasy as fact we have no basis for any kind of discussion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #192 January 7, 2005 Ron, as CIC, Shrub is responsibility for all actions under his charge.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #193 January 7, 2005 It wasn't until after the invasion in 2003 that Shrub's adminastration went back to their story of no Iraq-9/11 connections. I understand why it is so difficult to keep up when they keep changing their position.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #194 January 7, 2005 QuoteRon, as CIC, Shrub is responsibility for all actions under his charge. I see again you are just looking to place blame on someone else. If the FAA screwed up thr FAA is at fault. If NORAD screwed up then NORAD is at fault. If the Pilots screwed up, they are at fault. You just like to blame others. You REALLY like to blame President Bush."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #195 January 7, 2005 QuoteIt wasn't until after the invasion in 2003 that Shrub's adminastration went back to their story of no Iraq-9/11 connections. I understand why it is so difficult to keep up when they keep changing their position. That's just not true, they said repeatedly that there was no connection all along. Do you really think I have no recollection of these events? I was here watching and unlike you I was paying attention. Geeze dude I wonder if you make this up or if you actually believe it. Your reality distortion field colors everything. Not only do you judge Bush on his actions but you judge him based on a false version of those actions. You make false accusations here and stand by them and you'll libel anyone to support other flights of fancy including the interceptor pilots. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #196 January 7, 2005 QuoteThat's just not true, they said repeatedly that there was no connection all along. Do you really think I have no recollection of these events? I was here watching and unlike you I was paying attention. Geeze dude I wonder if you make this up or if you actually believe it. Your reality distortion field colors everything. Not only do you judge Bush on his actions but you judge him based on a false version of those actions. You make false accusations here and stand by them and you'll libel anyone to support other flights of fancy including the interceptor pilots. It is true. Quote A hint of a deliberate campaign to connect Iraq with 9/11 and al-Qaeda surfaced one year ago in a televised interview of General Wesley Clark on the popular public-affairs program, Meet the Press. In answer to a question, Clark asserted, "there was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein." "It came from the White House, it came from other people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'you got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.'" While Clark has not yet identified who called him, Perle, Woolsey, Gaffney and Kristol were using the same language in their media appearances on 9/11 and over the following weeks. "This could not have been done without help of one or more governments," Perle told The Washington Post on Sept. 11. "Someone taught these suicide bombers how to fly large airplanes. I don't think that can be done without the assistance of large governments." While Kristol and company were trying to implicate Hussein in the public debate, their friends in the administration were pushing hard in the same direction. Cheney, according to published accounts, had already confided to friends before Sept. 11 that he hoped the Bush administration would remove Hussein from power. But the evidence about Rumsfeld is even more dramatic. According to an account by veteran CBS newsman David Martin in September 2002, Rumsfeld was "telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks" five hours after an American Airlines jet slammed into the Pentagon. http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=2828 Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #197 January 7, 2005 QuoteQuoteThat's just not true, they said repeatedly that there was no connection all along. Do you really think I have no recollection of these events? I was here watching and unlike you I was paying attention. Geeze dude I wonder if you make this up or if you actually believe it. Your reality distortion field colors everything. Not only do you judge Bush on his actions but you judge him based on a false version of those actions. You make false accusations here and stand by them and you'll libel anyone to support other flights of fancy including the interceptor pilots. It is true. Quote A hint of a deliberate campaign to connect Iraq with 9/11 and al-Qaeda surfaced one year ago in a televised interview of General Wesley Clark on the popular public-affairs program, Meet the Press. In answer to a question, Clark asserted, "there was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein." "It came from the White House, it came from other people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'you got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.'" While Clark has not yet identified who called him, Perle, Woolsey, Gaffney and Kristol were using the same language in their media appearances on 9/11 and over the following weeks. "This could not have been done without help of one or more governments," Perle told The Washington Post on Sept. 11. "Someone taught these suicide bombers how to fly large airplanes. I don't think that can be done without the assistance of large governments." While Kristol and company were trying to implicate Hussein in the public debate, their friends in the administration were pushing hard in the same direction. Cheney, according to published accounts, had already confided to friends before Sept. 11 that he hoped the Bush administration would remove Hussein from power. But the evidence about Rumsfeld is even more dramatic. According to an account by veteran CBS newsman David Martin in September 2002, Rumsfeld was "telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks" five hours after an American Airlines jet slammed into the Pentagon. http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=2828 There's absolutely nothing there. No statement of any sort, only the claim that there's a hint, and a claim of pressure to make a connection. That this si the best you can do and it's so flimsy shows you're making this stuff up. Rumsfeld ordering a contingency plan is not a public statement claiming a link of any sort it's a politically motivated leak. I on the other hand specifically remember explicit statements saying there was no link even in the face of the Prague meeting before the invasion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #198 January 7, 2005 >Between 9-11-02 until the invasion, Shrub repaetedly told us how >SH was partially to balme for 9-11-01. >I guess we live in parallel universes because I specifically >remember statements . . . ----------------------- Here is the text of the letter Bush sent to Congress, telling them that he believed force would be necessary to protect the US against the nations that pulled off 9/11 - and specifically naming Iraq. Perhaps GWB lives in the same parellel universe you refer to, a universe where Iraq attacked the WTC in 2001. (Apparently FOX lives in the same universe as well; most FOX viewers believe Iraq had something to do with 9/11.) March 18, 2003 Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:) Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that: (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. Sincerely, GEORGE W. BUSH Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #199 January 7, 2005 A hint? You're kidding, right? From the transcript of NBC's Meet the Press: [GENERAL WESLEY]CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein." RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?" CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence." http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-iraq.html I was wrong about the effort beginning 9-11-02, but there was a deliberate effort to make the connection, without evidence.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #200 January 7, 2005 This letter to congress does not claim that Iraq even helped pull off 9/11. It says Iraq poses a threat, and and seeks the enforcement of UN resolutions. It separately and aditionally seeks the right to pursue international terrorists and (but not exclusively) all those involved in 9/11. This is a classic example of the kind of colored interpretation of the facts that I'm talking about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
