<a href='http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/10/politics/10PANE.html?hp' target='_blank'>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/10/politics.../10PANE.html?hp</a>

<a href='http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/bush.briefing/' target='_blank'>http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04.../bush.briefing/</a>

<a href='http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1085081.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1085081.htm</a>

<a href='http://us.rediff.com/news/2004/apr/10us.htm' target='_blank'>http://us.rediff.com/news/2004/apr/10us.htm</a>

<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3616005.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3616005.stm</a>

If you are stupid enough to beleive that, then the dem propoganda machine must be better than i thought. You know what i heard that Bush had his hench men intentionally blow up the space shuttle to get more sympathy towards the space program and he was secretly behind the Spanish attacks so Spaniards would get upset, and he could use that reason to send more U.S. troops to Iraq when the Spanish pull out. These are probally some of the next to be turned out by the dem prop machine.

You're right...the world press is making it up. :rolleyes:

Oddball Wrote:You're right...the world press is making it up. :rolleyes:

Who do you think leaked the so called information? Ummmmm Richard Clarke? Be careful of what certain media outlets say and their political affliliation.

The New York Times broke the story. CNN posted that they independently confirmed it. Even Faux News is grudgingly reporting it.

Even Stevie Wonder could see for months that Bush & Co. have been doing their best to hide something. That something is being revealed piece by piece.

As for Richard Clarke, you should beware where you get information about him. He is an honorable man being defamed by the same people who smeared McCain, Cleland, and O'Neal before him. Like with them, when it all comes out in the wash, we'll see who the real liars are.

Any problem with this source?

<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf</a>

Comments like "we will bring the fight to America" and "kill Americans wherever you find them" makes one wonder why (a) the US govt didn't do more in the 1990s through early 2001 to bag this scumbag and his henchmen, and (b) why Saddam Hussein became Priority #1 in the couple years following 9/11.

Iraq and excessive federal spending (equating to massive deficit) are the two top reasons why I'm none too pleased with the GOP right now.

You'd be hard pressed to find an issue where the current administration is truly conservative. The GOP has been hijacked.

bwhahahahahahaahahaahaha

here let me take a whole paragraph from that memo to the president,

"WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO CORROBORATE SOME OF THE MORE SENSATIONAL THREAT REPORTING, SUCH AS THAT FROM A ....... SERVICE IN 1998 SAYING THAT BIN LADEN WANTED TO HIJACK A US AIRCRAFT TO GAIN THE RELEASE OF BLIND SHAYKH UMAR ABD AL-RAHMAN AND OTHER US HELD EXTREMISTS"

now you all took english comprehension..so what does that exactly mean

it means they were not able to prove the threat, and why were they not able to prove the threat

the answer lays in a lack of reliable intelligence, of which you have two kinds, ELINT, AND HUMINT..elint..electronic intelligence gathering, humint..human intelligence gathering
electronic means satellites and the like, human means just that..actuall human operatives

who cut back intelligence....bill clinton

you want someone to blame...he was president in 1998...and why could they not prove anything...he cut back spending on the cia, fbi, nsa, and a few other intelligence organizations of which i'm going to list

keep on digging for you have yet to find anything which PROVES..that president bush dropped the ball

Some folks have a larger capacity for self-delusion than others, I suppose.

Btw, reading comprehension works best when you read the entire document as opposed to looking for an out-of-context quote to use to irrationally shift the blame. :rolleyes:

<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf</a>

you mean that document

no-where does it say in there that al quida was going to hijack planes and crash them into our buildings and use them as bombs..

not in one single place does it say that

so please tell me who can't comprehend what?

last i looked the twin towers were not considered to be FEDERAL BUILDINGS WITHIN NEW YORK CITY

it also states that the fbi was investigating a group of bin laden supporters within the usa that was planning attacks with explosives


not one time does it mention the hijacking of the aircraft for use as their explosive.....it does however mention the hijacking of aircraft IN ORDER TO GAIN THE RELEASE OF A CERTAIN PERSON ALONG WITH OTHER EXTREMISTS HELD BY THE USA

so now you tell me who needs to go back to school..more specifically basic english comprehension 101

is it ironic that oddball believes this democratic garbage?

I'm sorry that the terrorists weren't courteous enough to leave more detailed plans for Bush. Perhaps if they had given him dates and filed flight plans he might not have spent so much time pre-9/11 worrying about Iraq. :rolleyes:

Funny how a neo-con thinks that "democratic" is an insult, though.

I've never seen so many people not only complicit in being duped, but seeming to revel in it. Amazing.

[QUOTE]I've never seen so many people not only complicit in being duped, but seeming to revel in it. Amazing[QUOTE]

I am a history prof. and I do remember the last time people were like this.....Nerumberg 1933 :(

up until 09/11/2001

all hijackings had been to gain the release of comrades in arms or money for their cause..

not one single time in history had a plane been hijacked to be used as the explosive ..

is that understood?

where we failed is in INTELLIGENCE GATHERING

more specifically HUMINT, OR HUMAN INTELLIGENCE GATHERING

and why is that, because clinton cut back on the budgets for HUMINT and ELINT, clinton cut both the cia's and nsa's budgets for intelligence gathering purposes

the end result was only too painfully obvious...lets say about 11:15 am september 11th 2001

take off your rose colored glasses and see the world as it honestly is

Quote:CNN.com
White House releases bin Laden memo
Presidential briefing was at center of Rice's testimony
Sunday, April 11, 2004 Posted: 0129 GMT (0929 HKT)

"The PDB article did not warn of the 9/11 attacks," the White House said in a statement released Saturday night. "Although the PDB referred to the possibility of hijackings, it did not discuss the possible use of planes as weapons."

Until this point hijackings were only a means of taking hostages to get demands met. Many talk as if The President had been told when, where, how, and to what extent these attacks would occur.

[quote="broncobill"] [QUOTE]I've never seen so many people not only complicit in being duped, but seeming to revel in it. Amazing[QUOTE]

I am a history prof. and I do remember the last time people were like this.....Nerumberg 1933 :( [/quote]
In most cases, that would be an overwrought comparison, but it is, unfortunately, becoming more and more apt. Hopefully, current trends prevail, and we can start to close this dark chapter in our history.

You have to wonder if these neo-con brownshirts would have even a moment of doubt no matter what evidence is presented? When respected, true conservatives are speaking out, and evidence begins to mount that supports their assertions, while the administration speaks in carefully couched double-speak to cover their rears and smear their opposition, and they still make excuses, you have to begin to doubt that anything will ever sway them.

Oddball Wrote:I'm sorry that the terrorists weren't courteous enough to leave more detailed plans for Bush. Perhaps if they had given him dates and filed flight plans he might not have spent so much time pre-9/11 worrying about Iraq. :rolleyes:

This is the point that, in my opinion, has not been emphasized enough.

Two or three weeks after Bush's inauguration, Richard Clarke sought a meeting with him to discuss Qaeda. He got the meeting a week later... but Bush only wanted to talk about Iraq. Qaeda was not discussed, or barely discussed.

Yeah, King George II was certainly alarmed by that memo. Why, he took a whole month off to hide at his ranch.

He's spent more of his presidency on vacation than any other president, ever.

Good ole hard-drinkin' George. What a hard-workin' guy.