PDB from AUG 6 is out..full text in OP

By iamme99: “Exactly! For instance, they could have had the air force be a little more ready to send up fighter jets on short notice if necessary.”

I’ve seen this complaint posted several times, that fighters weren’t deployed. Just to satisfy my own curiosity, what would these jet fighters have done?

Do those of you who see this as a failure believe that airliners loaded with passengers should have been shot down over major cities in anticipation that they might be headed for a building?
Do you think that shooting them down before anyone was sure of what was going on would have been a rational act? Would YOU have given the order to shoot down a loaded civilian airliner?

If there is some other benefit these fighters would have provided I can’t seem to figure out what it would have been. Can you enlighten me?

On the other hand, if you were aware that two passenger jets had been crashed into the World Trade Centre in the space of 20 minutes, and you had another hi-jacked plane in the sky heading towards Washington, you might have a tiny inkling of what was going to happen and the fighters may have been of some use, no?

In the uncertainty and confusion surrounding the morning of 9/11, would you have given the order to shoot it down? Would you have done nothing and hoped the passengers tried something? What would have been the right thing to do?

I’ve thought about this at length, long before now, and I still can’t believe anybody would have given the “shoot” order, even if military jets were flying near it. It would have been tough to do.

And since this is America, there’s this:

Imagine the headlines: “Air Force kills hundreds because there ‘might’ have been another crash!”
Imagine the lawsuits: “What proof do you have, General, that the airplane on which you ordered hundreds of innocent people murdered was going to crash into a public building?”

If there’s something the fighters could have done other than shoot the airliners down, what would that have been?

They’d made a decision in June that that the military weren’t allowed to shoot down hijacked planes anyway.

So that part of the argument is misdirected.

I don’t know what they would’ve been able to do.

No. The word on the streets after 9/11 was that the attacks were unthinkable. Anyone who said otherwise got shouted down for sympathizing with terrorist madmen. Bush simply lead the nation in adopting this helpful viewpoint during the early hours of 9/11. Had he taken action against the remaining jets it would have shown that the attacks were thinkable.

Do YOU think the remaining hijacked airliners should have been shot down? Do you see not shooting them down as a failure?
Do you think YOU would have given the order to shoot? Just curious.

I do think that at least the plane headed for the pentagon should have been shot down. Whether it could have been is a question to which we’ll never know the answer. Not shooting it down wasn’t a failure, but getting paralyzed by the enormity of events to the extent that heaven and earth were not moved to stop the attack was a failure.

It occurs to me that the “CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF INSTRUCTION J-3 CJCSI 3610.01A” I linked to above is located on a “questionable” website. So before anyone actually questions it, here’s a link to the same document on a .mil site:

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

(And yes, I’ve already verified that it says exactly the same thing.)

Squink

Yes, but the word on the streets after 9/11 has now been cast into doubt. That’s why we’re having this debate.

Of course shooting them down represents a failure. Do you think that allowing them to fly on and crash into buildings represents a success? The failure occured well before that point to be fair, having the airforce on a state of alert that would have allowed them to be a factor if required was only the last of a series of things that could have been done and wasn’t.

Who knows? As I’ve never had the slightest desire to be a World Leader, I’m not sure it’s really relevant anyway.

I think that if a similar highjacking were to occur now, though, the airforce would shoot, so I’m not sure your reservations about law suits, etc stand up.

Sorry, second and third quotes were of course John Carter of Mars .

That makes me think: any chance we’ll get a look at the PDPs that predict the Korean missle threat? I can’t imagine we will but it would be nice to compare Aug-6 with the type of memo that does get their attention.

I imagine more exclamation points. :wink:

Exactly, and I maintain that this bizarre attitude about the attacks somehow being unthinkable was initiated, aided and abetted by the president’s lack of action on 9/11.
Maybe living through the cold war has left me with unreasonable expectations of what government preparedness should be, but if, rather than terrorists with airplanes, 9/11 had been a preemptive nuclear strike by the soviets, hundreds of American cities would have been reduced to ashes before Bush stopped reading stories to schoolkids. I pay good money to the Feds for national defense, and it bothers me when they appear to be asleep at the switch like they were on the morning of 9/11.

From a statement of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:

from http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2002/senatecommittee091802.html

Of course lots of the intelligence was questionable, but it does show that the idea of using planes as weapons was hardly unthinkable.
Additionally, that last is very interesting indeed, coming as it did in August 2001, and having in it the idea of crashing a plane into the embassy. Obviously, the idea of using a plane as a weapon was quite thinkable in August 2001. Combined with the info in the PDB about possible hijackings and the surveillance of Federal buildings in NYC, it shouldn’t have been much of a stretch to come up with the idea of a hijacked plane crashing into an NYC building, especially since information had been received in August 1998 relating to a plot to crash a plane into the WTC.
But of course you’d have to be actually working rather than on vacation all the time to get anything done about connecting all of these dots. Probably it couldn’t have been done anyway, but it’s guaranteed not to get done if your main priority in life is spending as much time as possible relaxing at your ranch.

Get this:

Bush says that the brief contained “nothing about an attack on America.”
Hunh? Has he STILL not read the damn thing?

Bush: Nothing Warned of 9/11 Attacks

So, at least today, the president’s view of the PDB is that it was not just an historical background report as Condi claimed. These guys really need to get their stories straight.

Thomas Oliphant, “Facts Don’t Fit In Rice’s Picture”:

The whole column is very much worth a read. This shitstorm has barely started, friends.

I just want to get this brief word in here before the rationalizations, double talk and butt covering takes over completely, not that it hasn’t been going on from the beginning, almost since the last girder fell off the World Trade Center. While the Carter, Reagan, George HW Bush, Clinton and GW Bush administrations may well have been inattentive and ineffective about the potential for damage that could be done by Osama and the Jahadists, the present Administration had the Last Clear Chance to forestall the events of September 11, but failed (perhaps reasonably) to react to the warnings and heightened activity that we see now was the ramp up to that tragedy. The present Administration may point to the failure of Clinton Administration to deal with and eliminate the threat before they came on board but there is no escape from the fact that the Bush Administration had the Last Clear Chance to act but but did not.

Exactly!

To all those so-called conservatives who are defending Bush’s having been asleep at the wheel, ask yourselves this: what if precisely the same thing had occurred if Gore had been president? If all this obfuscation, deception, secrecy, covering of asses, passing of the buck, etc. had happened during a Gore administration, would you still be as inclined to defend him as you do Bush?

Or is it simply that party loyalty trumps national interest?

If it were Gore, I am certain that all of you would be screaming for impeachment, and rightly so! You wanted to impeach a president over lying about an extra-marital affair…what about a president who lies about critical national security issues?

“I wanted to know whether there was anything, any actionable intelligence,” Bush said, and when he read the memo of Aug. 6, 2001, “I was satisfied that some of the matters were being looked into.”

It is interesting to note that dub can pronounce “actionable intelligence”…

back to back four syllables, a rhetorical tour de force for him…

                                or

(foil beanie on)

           They've replaced old stumbletongue with an android, who, of course, is way smarter.

query:if true, is this good or bad?

Aren’t you forgetting that the preparedness of the cold war consisted of retaliation? “If you kill us dead, we’ll kill you deader” was the deal. There was nothing available to prevent an ICBM attack other than the threat of retaliation. So, yes, hundreds of Amreican cities would have been reduced to ashes in the event of a preemptive nuclear strike. The president could have been reading to kids or screaming into the red telephone, it wouldn’t have mattered.
By Avenger: “I think that if a similar highjacking were to occur now, though, the airforce would shoot, so I’m not sure your reservations about law suits, etc stand up.”

The information posted by Desmostylus makes it clear that the military is forbidden to attack a hijacked airplane. Even putting that order aside, I don’t think we’ll ever see the day when an American fighter is ordered to shoot down an aircraft that has civilian passengers aboard.

There have been books written, and TV specials produced, about the following:

FDR’s failure to anticipate and prepare for Pearl Harbor.
Ike’s failure to anticipate and prepare for the Chinese to send infantry troops into the Korean Conflict.
Kennedy’s failure to know Russia was installing ICBM’s in Cuba.
LBJ’s failure to anticipate and prepare for the Tet Offensive.

The above list could go on and on. If you guys wish to claim 9/11 is a unique failure by the Bush Administration, have fun. History indicates that it’s unlikely that an unprecidented act can or will be prepared for.