Not at all. I was a firm believer in the doctrine of mutually assured destruction. High vigilance, and the willingness to engage in nuclear retaliation, even if we ourselves were doomed is the only thing that got us through the cold war alive.
The need to respond quickly to massive threats did not die with the cold war, but apparently the will and dedication required for an administration to respond to sudden national emergencies did.
Squink, I guess we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one. A prepared response to a known threat such as ICBM’s is one thing. Preparing for an endless list of “what if’s” is not so simple.
Since we’re in Great Debates, anybody wanna’ debate the desirability of getting the sig thingy to default to OFF? 
That would be this paragraph?
How about we listen to what the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Democratic Senator and former Presidential candidate Bob Graham has to say about that memo in 2002:
So, that paragraph about hijacking was three years old. Do you honestly think the President should launch the country into alert status based on a one-page briefing of years-old information?
Kevin Drum points out that there is nothing at all aside from the already redacted portions, that national security would have an interest in protecting: nothing that couldn’t have been released right after 9/11 In other words, as they’ve fought the release of this memo for two years, they’ve been abusing the concept of national security for purely political covering-their-asses reasons.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_04/003675.php
You’re right, preparing for a wide variety of nasty possibilities is tough. However, I don’t see that as an excuse for what appeared to be a major breakdown in crisis readiness.
We’re getting ready to deploy an ABM system this year, and the response to the events of 9/11 make me wonder what sort of readiness we’ll have on launching that defence. Surely we’ll need to do better than localized control and launch on warning. It’d be a real shame if we started a war by mistakenly blowing up a chinese airliner or some such.
That’s riduculous on it’s face, Sam. What do you think the words “since that time” and “recent” mean?
Al Qaeda’s planning cycles often last years, as they’ve demonstrated time and time again. Their ultimate view to victory looks ahead to a century of struggle and strategic moves against us.
It’s like the Pearl Harbor debacle. First- you dudes all know by now I am no freind of the Bush admin.
You dudes don’t know how Intelligence works. Let me give you an analogy.
Let us say there is a jigsaw puzzle. You have half the peices (and that seems to be what we had in this case- about half the info). You and freinds put it together. Then you look at the cover of the box (this is what we are doing now, since we have 20/20 hindsight), and it all becomes pretty damn clear. Look, this fuzzy white thing is a cloud- becuase it’s in the air- that fuzzy white thing is part of a sheep, on the ground. That’s the mill, there’s the farmhouse. That odd looking thing we have part of is a combine. And, note there’s no pressure on you, and no time constraints- take all the time you want. Aha! Clear! Anyone looking at this puzzle should be able to see it what it’s of- a bucolic farm scene- combine, sheep, cloudy skies, etc. Viola! Damn, that was easy- why couldn’t THEY see it?
But that’s not how it is. First, we gotta take away the box top. Before the ‘event’ you don’t know what’s going to happen, right? Then, we do still have half the pieces- but we also have 2>3 times that, most of which are from different puzzles (it is SO easy to figure out what intelligence relates to 9-11 after it happens. Not so easy before :dubious: ). Then, there is false intelligence, so we’ll toss a couple of false pieces in that are designed to delude and confuse you. And of course- lots & lots of pressure- so we’ll have somebody screaming at you half the time, a gun pointed at your family (and they die if you fail), and a ticking clock- you only have a brief time. Now go ahead and tell me what the puzzle is. :dubious:
Same thing with all the “Airmchair quarterbacking after the fact” theories. The “puzzle” is SO very easy… once you know what it is, you have all the time in the world, no pressure, and you have had all the wrong and false pieces eliminated. :rolleyes: But that’s not how Intelligence works in the “real world”.
Moderator’s Note: Desmostylus, thank you for cooling it with the ad hominens.
ElvisL1ves, knock it off. Right now. You’ve been warned before, which means you’re getting on thin ice. If you can’t have a civil debate with Sam Stone, then don’t post to the threads at all.
Well, speaking for myself, Dr Deth, I did point out that there was probably no realistic way of putting all the pieces together to come up with the particulars of the 9/11 plot.
But that wasn’t my point anyway. My point was to refute the following:
[ul]
[li]Rice saying that planes as missiles was unthinkable. Obviously, it was eminently thinkable.[/li][li]There were no imminent threats from al Qaeda. The Nairobi item(from the Senate Intelligence report, not the PDB) looks from here like an imminent threat.[/li][li]Given the “hair on fire” state right up to Aug 2001 and the surveillance of NYC buildings, if some pressure had been placed on everyone to figure out where and what might happen next, someone might have at least thought to figure out Moussaui and his connections (see http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/politics/11COLE.html?pagewanted=2&hp, the closing paragraphs:[/li]
[/ul]
Maybe the CIA and the FBI, given a few more resources, might have been able to speed up their investigation by even just a couple of days, which might have been enough to foil this plot.
Hard to do when the Prez doesn’t think enough of the threat to even come back from vacation, and as for the Secretary of Defense, we have this:
from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2523-304001,00.html
With an attitude like that, you’re never going to find a thing.
Fair disclosure: Thanks to Randy Paul at Calpundit for this last.
The question is not whether they should have known exactly what was going to happen: that’s a red herring. It was whether they should have taken action in the face of growing threats and complaints about security holes, in the face of constant warnings that they should take action because we were in real danger. If their attitude really had involved trying hard to do something, make an effort, no one could have faulted them for failing. But the fact is, as comes to light more and more everyday, that they did just the opposite: they scoffed at recommendations, dragged their feet, ridiculed some people who were trying to warn them, and generally just stonewalled the whole enterpirse as being a distraction from their agenda.
Condi Rice didn’t tell the truth, as we can now see for ourselves. She lied when she explicitly insisted that the document was comprised merely of “historical information” and contained no warnings that would require or direct serious action.
I’ve seen some absurd claims in this thread to the effect that for Rice/Bush to have lied, the document must have contained an explicit, unambiguous warning that Bin Laden was going to crash two airliners into the WTC in September. That’s ridiculous!
The Bush Administration did NOT need to specifically know that Al Qaeda was going to crash airliners into the WTC towers (or when) in order to find enough credible warnings in the PDB to prompt immediate emergency actions. Actions such as increasing airport security, placing many more Air Marshalls on appropriate flights, and doing something to reinforce cockpit security (either find a quick mechanical fix such as installing floor locks just behing door, or even just giving guns to the crew).
After all, as the PDB shows, they were talking about hijacking planes, and that’s exactly what Bin Laden & Al Qaeda DID on 9/11! Had they been prevented from boarding or hijacking planes – which tasks were certain realizable prior to Sept. 11 – then the WTC would still be standing today. I’m continually amazed and disheartened by all those lack-witted ninnies who claim and (amazingly!) actually seem to believe that such information was “too vague” to prompt serious emergency actions that would have prevented 9/11 – actions that were very irresponsibly not taken. This is a huge, inexcusable blot on George W. Bush’s administration: It was on his watch, and he didn’t do anything to prevent it!
It boggles the mind that anyone respects Dubya at all and that some people will actually vote to re-elect the most irresponsible and inept administration in decades.
If the title of the PDB had been “Saddam Hussein Determined to Strike in U.S.” and all of the information had related to Iraqi terrorist cells and activities, do you think that President Bush would still have found the information inactionable?
MeBuckner, my apologies for overstepping the bounds here. This is a very difficult subject to control one’s emotions about, especially when views are continually expressed that are so violently in discord with the facts. I have failed to do so this time.
Well, since the document specifically mentions 1998, I would guess that ‘since that time’ means, well, some time between 1998 and 2001. As for ‘recent’, I dunno. Last month? Last year?
Let’s face it - this document is a Rorschach test for political alignment. It’s a document that contains a mixture of old and new, vague and unspecified threats, and chronicles some 70 ongoing intelligence operations. So people who support Bush are claiming that there’s nothing here that would have compelled the President into an emergency course of action, and opponents seem to think this is the smoking gun that proves he was asleep at the switch.
The document mentions lots of dates. However, you nominated one paragraph in particular. Remember?
Then you claimed that the paragraph was “three years old”. Like I said, your claim is ridiculous on its face.
I know that, Sam. Prove that he wasn’t asleep at the switch then. Don’t try to base your defense on patently absurd statements.
QUOTE=Spavined Gelding] It is starting to become apparent to me that had the Administration thought that the briefing represented anything more that worse case scenario butt covering from people whose job depended on seeing danger around every corner it would have done something. You will remember that at the time the Administration was fully engaged in cranking up the Bush Tax Cuts and the Star Wars Missile Defense. The Administration had a full plate in the late summer and early fall of 2001. It was not in a mood to crank up a full court defense against what it seems to have thought was a remote threat, not when there were tax cuts and big dollar missile programs to run through Congress…
[/QUOTE]
Fair enough, but doesn’t it make it equally fair to ask, what were the general public priorities before 9-11? Too general? Let’s narrow the field: what were the opposition priorities before 9-11? Was it national security? Was it the imminent threat of terror? Or was it “clean air” and somesuch? Was Bush criticized at all for being negligent on AlQ before 9-11? Was there any sense of urgency to increase efforts to fight terrorists?
I find it ironic that people using this chance to trash Bush (again) are the strongest proponents of Democracy on this board. Usually, I can’t say a word in defense of extraordinary measures in the time of war without being accused of being a foe of big D. Well, D means the form of government that executes people’s wishes. Were there any wishes expressed to increase the airport security by anyone before 9-11? Was anybody clamoring for more searches, more hassle, more vigilance? Anyone at all? If Bush issued order to pay a special attention to young Arabs, what would happen? How would the opposition react? Hell, there were lawsuits against singling out young Arabs at the airports after 9-11!
Or you’d say that D is one thing, but the administration should have known more then we do, should have anticipated more then we do, should have acted in the best interests of the country regardless which misconceptions the public might have? And that would be said by the same people that demand perfect transparency and accountability in advance of Iraq invasion?
I agree that Bush needs to shoulder some blame for 9-11. However, a lot more people need to recognize their complicity in that event.
I quoted Bob Graham, who said that the intelligence about possible hijackings was three years old. That’s what that paragraph mentions. It was a direct quote of the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. If you think that’s ‘patently absurd’, take it up with him.
I notice that Graham says they had access to the same intelligence as Bush. And yet, there has not been a single hearing about al-Qaida in the House that I know of. Do you reserve any condemnation for your elected representatives, or is this just a Bush thing?
Fair enough, but doesn’t it make it equally fair to ask, what were the general public priorities before 9-11? Too general? Let’s narrow the field: what were the opposition priorities before 9-11? Was it national security? Was it the imminent threat of terror? Or was it “clean air” and somesuch? Was Bush criticized at all for being negligent on AlQ before 9-11? Was there any sense of urgency to increase efforts to fight terrorists?
I find it ironic that people using this chance to trash Bush (again) are the strongest proponents of Democracy on this board. Usually, I can’t say a word in defense of extraordinary measures in the time of war without being accused of being a foe of big D. Well, D means the form of government that executes people’s wishes. Were there any wishes expressed to increase the airport security by anyone before 9-11? Was anybody clamoring for more searches, more hassle, more vigilance? Anyone at all? If Bush issued order to pay a special attention to young Arabs, what would happen? How would the opposition react? Hell, there were lawsuits against singling out young Arabs at the airports after 9-11!
Or you’d say that D is one thing, but the administration should have known more then we do, should have anticipated more then we do, should have acted in the best interests of the country regardless which misconceptions the public might have? And that would be said by the same people that demand perfect transparency and accountability in advance of Iraq invasion?
I agree that Bush needs to shoulder some blame for 9-11. However, a lot more people need to recognize their complicity in that event.