9-11 Commission

[nycwriters]

here's some info on it


How do you think this will all play out? Do you think it'll be swept under the rug, dismissed ... or will someone be made accountable? And who will that someone be? Will it be Bush? Or someone lower get the bulk of the blame?

Or will there BE any blame?

Your thoughts?

[masterofNone]

lot's of good stuff today. i don't think there'll be anything like a john dean revelation that there was a "cancer on the presidency" or anything, but i think the administration will look like the ham handed ideologues that they have shown themselves to be since 1/20/2001.

and that's worth something.

[nycwriters]

Oh, oh ....

I can see where this is leading, can you?

I'm now wondering if Bush is "acting" resistant to this commission, ie: doing a great acting job ...

Because one testimony today (I forget who) is now claiming that while there was no way either of the administration's (Bush and Clinton) could have done anything to prepare for 9/11, the person testifying did offer that HAD Osama been ousted in the '90s, and "taken care of" ... that was probably the only way to have prevented what happened Sept. 11.

Nice parlay no?

Justification for Saddam?

Good grief.

[xfox]

Where was the "press" in this flap prior to 9/11? Jim Lerher admitted, the other night, that this had crossed his mind in a discussion of these "politics".

I think it is encumbent on us all to be wary of evil doers. The bad guys in Iraq are like uncivilized, naughty children and it's just to damn late to whine now.

Their region has known nothing but turmoil for a hundred years. They've got what we need, yes, but what we need to do for them is work toward a stable govenment, where the folks can educate themselves and produce something (science, computers, rugs?). Since they are exporting a valuable resource, they should, like the Saudi's, have a reasonably good system in place to keep order.

I think the "press" is heavily biased to the left.

Any of you who want to bring it on, just let me know. Just keep in mind, epexegesis is not my game.

[dinzdale]

Originally posted by xfox
they should, like the Saudi's, have a reasonably good system in place to keep order.

Having lived there, I enjoyed the "Saudi reasonable system".
But that's not what the US wants for Iraq, cos how could they back a Govt that doesnt let women drive or vote? Forced marriages? Female circumcision?

Mind you, cutting of thieves hands etc... might be worth exporting.....

[nycwriters]

Ya know, there's no possible way for me to refute the journalism aspect of this without it being perceived as defensive, so, I guess you'll have to take my word that it's not.

Originally posted by xfox
Where was the "press" in this flap prior to 9/11? Jim Lerher admitted, the other night, that this had crossed his mind in a discussion of these "politics".

Prior to 9/11 all the information about terrorists and their activities were determined "classified." Ergo those two memos which have just recently surfaced and became accessible -- suddenly they became declassified. Prior to that, we knew just about as much as you did about threat and potential threat. Red tape and "classified" are mighty powerful walls to jump over to view the real deal. Bush would be in a helluva lot more trouble now if it were that easy, is my guess.

And while Lerher is a respected journalist, he in no way represents all. He has his views and opinions to which he's entitled.

Originally posted by xfox
I think it is encumbent on us all to be wary of evil doers. The bad guys in Iraq are like uncivilized, naughty children and it's just to damn late to whine now.

This is a pretty lame point. We should have been wary of evil doers and ever-vigilant prior to 9/11 and ever after. That's the job of our administration. That's why this is being investigated now. That's why it's coming to the surface that the administration (both Clinton's and Bush's) were warned about increasing activity and communications within the Al Qaeda network. That's why Clarke is speaking out about it now. That's how we got to view those "classified" memos. It's sickening that nobody paid heed to him when he expressed alarm.

I take offense though, to you coupling evil-doers in the same sentence with Iraq. The US believed it was going to "liberate" Iraq from a dictator. They believed this war would take two weeks at most, and that soldiers would be greeted by thousands of Iraqis waving white flags and embracing them. This, as you know, wasn't quite the way it went down, and still isn't the way it's "going down" -- as many lives are lost. This is our generation's Vietnam.

The point is, they don't want us there. I think it borders on ignorance to culture and nation by imposing an ideology upon a people who evidently don't want it.

Or perhaps they were looking at how democracy is working in Afghanistan and have decided they don't want any part of it.

To equate the people of Iraq as a bunch of "uncivilized, naughty children and it's just to (sic) damn late to whine now" -- is ignorant.

They never asked us to come in there. We chose to. So there goes your "to (sic) damn late to whine now" bit. Now they have to deal with cities without power, without drinkable water, without any kind of police force, fraught with violence and destruction day after day.

Think how you would feel if your city was turned upside down like that and you were forced to uphold the rules of an occupying government? Then think that maybe you are open minded to change as a citizen, but you aren't seeing things getting better with this new "rule" ... instead you are desperate to try to feed and clothe yourself and you are struggling on a daily basis. How long would your resolve for this new government hold out before you said "fvck it!"? Especially when you don't even have basic rudimentary things like heat, water and food?

Originally posted by xfox
Their region has known nothing but turmoil for a hundred years. They've got what we need, yes, but what we need to do for them is work toward a stable govenment, where the folks can educate themselves and produce something (science, computers, rugs?). Since they are exporting a valuable resource, they should, like the Saudi's, have a reasonably good system in place to keep order.

Oh my God.

Did you think these people lived in huts? Perhaps made with twigs? I hate to break it to you, but they had computers, markets, shopping plazas, food stores, schools and universities -- basically everything you and I have.

There was no turmoil outside of the dictatorship. Saddam had been quiet prior to Bush's invasion. In fact Bush Sr. has stated very publically that he does NOT support his son's invasion of Iraq. If dad thinks it's a bad idea, then maybe/perhaps it was?

Please please please do a little research and find out that A: Iraq has the largest oil reserves IN THE WORLD -- more than Saudi. B: Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, but bitterly hated the US and the western world and was about to make an oil deal with Russia and Germany that EXCLUDED Britain and the USA. It was a huge deal and it was the only way he could "get" at the western world. Otherwise, militaristically, he was impotent. That was assured after the first Gulf War.

And if the US was excluded from that lucrative oil deal, then that pipeline that Bush Sr. had built through Afghanistan to Iraq, a decade earlier, would go to waste.

As for Saudi rule, well Dinz has shed some light on that.

Originally posted by xfox
I think the "press" is heavily biased to the left.

And many have been saying the "press" is heavily biased to the right for the past four years.

You can't win this argument, so I'm not going to try. I will say that you are entitled to your opinion.

Originally posted by xfox
Any of you who want to bring it on, just let me know. Just keep in mind, epexegesis is not my game.

But you make broad (and unfounded) generalizations and don't expect to back them up? Interesting.

I hope you'll find this the one exception and take part and provide the additional explanations, because with all due respect, I'm having a very hard time understanding you.

[topcat]

ok this is only my opinion,i think the goverment knew something was going down.the world trade center buildings usually had about ,( and i am not sure on this number)40,000 people in each building. i find it amazing that 3000 people died. you would think the count would be much higher. now one life lost is one to many, but i wonder how many people did'nt go to work that day.also with all this talk about the war in iraq, is anybody talking about where all the oil is going that they are producing. i know by the prices i am paying for gas it isnt coming my way.

[xfox]

Originally posted by nycwriters
Ya know, there's no possible way for me to refute the journalism aspect of this without it being perceived as defensive, so, I guess you'll have to take my word that it's not.

xfox Reply: I know I'm alone on this board in supporting the current administration.

Prior to 9/11 all the information about terrorists and their activities were determined "classified." Ergo those two memos which have just recently surfaced and became accessible -- suddenly they became declassified. Prior to that, we knew just about as much as you did about threat and potential threat. Red tape and "classified" are mighty powerful walls to jump over to view the real deal. Bush would be in a helluva lot more trouble now if it were that easy, is my guess.

xfox Reply: So the prior AQ activities, circa1998 onward, escaped the news?

And while Lerher is a respected journalist, he in no way represents all. He has his views and opinions to which he's entitled.

xfox Reply: Who represents all? We are all little lights, aren't we?


This is a pretty lame point. We should have been wary of evil doers and ever-vigilant prior to 9/11 and ever after. That's the job of our administration. That's why this is being investigated now. That's why it's coming to the surface that the administration (both Clinton's and Bush's) were warned about increasing activity and communications within the Al Qaeda network. That's why Clarke is speaking out about it now. That's how we got to view those "classified" memos. It's sickening that nobody paid heed to him when he expressed alarm.

xfox Reply: "Our administration"? May I take it you don't mean "the" administration? I am sure that there are thousands of issues before government by the minute, every day. Clinton, the press and a disgruntled Clark whose pecking order probably dropped substantially after Bush took office, all had different priorities.

I take offense though, to you coupling evil-doers in the same sentence with Iraq. The US believed it was going to "liberate" Iraq from a dictator. They believed this war would take two weeks at most, and that soldiers would be greeted by thousands of Iraqis waving white flags and embracing them. This, as you know, wasn't quite the way it went down, and still isn't the way it's "going down" -- as many lives are lost. This is our generation's Vietnam.

xfox Reply: Who thought a war in Iraq would last 2 weeks? And Vietnam looks fairly normal today. The timetables of history have never known utter and complete peace in this world.

The point is, they don't want us there. I think it borders on ignorance to culture and nation by imposing an ideology upon a people who evidently don't want it.

xfox Reply: We agree.

Or perhaps they were looking at how democracy is working in Afghanistan and have decided they don't want any part of it.

To equate the people of Iraq as a bunch of "uncivilized, naughty children and it's just to (sic) damn late to whine now" -- is ignorant.

xfox Reply: If their intelligencia has left for greener pastures, what does that leave?

They never asked us to come in there. We chose to. So there goes your "to (sic) damn late to whine now" bit. Now they have to deal with cities without power, without drinkable water, without any kind of police force, fraught with violence and destruction day after day.

xfox Reply: I believe power has been restored and civil engineering is underway to restore infrastructure. Halliburton employees are now risking their lives to assist. If AQ would quit killing Iraqis who are working with US Troops it would be better.

Think how you would feel if your city was turned upside down like that and you were forced to uphold the rules of an occupying government? Then think that maybe you are open minded to change as a citizen, but you aren't seeing things getting better with this new "rule" ... instead you are desperate to try to feed and clothe yourself and you are struggling on a daily basis. How long would your resolve for this new government hold out before you said "fvck it!"? Especially when you don't even have basic rudimentary things like heat, water and food?

xfox Reply: I pray for those people and thank my lucky stars I don't have the above problems.


Oh my God.

Did you think these people lived in huts? Perhaps made with twigs? I hate to break it to you, but they had computers, markets, shopping plazas, food stores, schools and universities -- basically everything you and I have.

xfox Reply: I doubt anybody under a their previous rule (Saddam Hussein) enjoyed much freedom. Western civilisation is not necessarily the Alpha Omega Alpha, but I don't favor certain dietary and other customs found elsewhere, personally.

There was no turmoil outside of the dictatorship. Saddam had been quiet prior to Bush's invasion. In fact Bush Sr. has stated very publically that he does NOT support his son's invasion of Iraq. If dad thinks it's a bad idea, then maybe/perhaps it was?

xfox Reply: The Middle East has been a bed of unrest for time immemorial. Please cite regarding 41 & 43.

Please please please do a little research and find out that A: Iraq has the largest oil reserves IN THE WORLD -- more than Saudi. B: Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, but bitterly hated the US and the western world and was about to make an oil deal with Russia and Germany that EXCLUDED Britain and the USA. It was a huge deal and it was the only way he could "get" at the western world. Otherwise, militaristically, he was impotent. That was assured after the first Gulf War.

xfox Reply: Please don't forget we can't like some terrorist and not others. Any aid to AQ bids us ill.

And if the US was excluded from that lucrative oil deal, then that pipeline that Bush Sr. had built through Afghanistan to Iraq, a decade earlier, would go to waste.

As for Saudi rule, well Dinz has shed some light on that.


And many have been saying the "press" is heavily biased to the right for the past four years.

xfox Reply: Would be nice if it were more balanced.

You can't win this argument, so I'm not going to try. I will say that you are entitled to your opinion.

xfox Reply: ? Thanks.

But you make broad (and unfounded) generalizations and don't expect to back them up? Interesting.

xfox reply: There is a lot of chatter out there, and yes I'm stating my opinion. It doesn't matter what you do, but it DOES matter what you call it. What is AQ calling it? Whose side are you on?

I hope you'll find this the one exception and take part and provide the additional explanations, because with all due respect, I'm having a very hard time understanding you.

xfox Reply: I'm older and voted for JFK. Its admirable that Bush is so determined to lead and the world as it shrinks tends, however, critically, to follow. We are lucky to have SO many talented people in this country. Many are from the Middle East. To think that GWB hasn't considered every alternative to 9/11, which could not have been foreseen, is silly.

East is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet.

I hope that your passion here continues. I just believe Bush's recent statements describe the only course we can take from here, and that is to strive toward free elections and security in Iraq.

Iraqis who can freely think like you and I taking opposite opinions and still carry on is quite wonderful!

[nycwriters]

I can understand what you're saying -- that now that we've got ourselves in it, we need to establish security and a form of democracy or look the fool for having gone in, in the first place.

But I think we should get out of there. Period. Let them hash over what they want as a form of government -- the stronger powers are already rising to the surface and overtaking cities as we speak. Darwinism, in a way.

However, I feel we are obliged to provide some kind of financial remuneration to support the birth of this new nation, because we layed most of it in ruins.

A hands-off approach. Because anyone the US puts into power will be viewed with suspicion, and likely overthrown -- as we're seeing rumblings in Afghanistan this way.

Of course this could be viewed as throwing money at a problem and hoping it goes away, but I think with the recent weeks struggles, we're getting a clear indication of how much we are not wanted there -- in effect how much we were never wanted there to begin with.

I don't want to see another person die. Not one more.

[dinzdale]

Originally posted by xfox
.......to strive toward free elections ....... in Iraq.

Other arabic countries dont have them, why should Iraq (patriachy) even want them? Wouldnt they want a muslim state after all, complete with religeous policeforce and no separation of state and religeon?


And BTW the muslim system DOES work to keep citizens happy, and works effectively - it's just not democracy as the west would like.

[xfox]

Iraq may be the first.

Did anybody see Condelezza Rice on This Week with George Sephanopoulos? I'll second her statements. She is one amazing person!

[nycwriters]

You're not answering the question xfox: Why should we impose democracy on a nation that obviously doesn't want it?

Is it really a democracy when all the construction contracts are being given to Halliburton?

[xfox]

NYC you're not being ignored - just my work schedule interupts my freely chosen intellectual pursuits.

Our cultures differ, but the world is shrinking. Sept 11, 2001 was a horrible day. What good can come of letting the source of this trouble triumph?

Before society organized itself banishment from cities and towns was the deadliest way to condem people. The protection of the group prevented might making right.

The world has gone beyond this concept, except as a nation in on Earth, we are not trying to do anything except give Iraqis a chance at freely organizing themselves. In the process we removed an evil person who supported a threat to further violence.

[nycwriters]

Oh man, xfox. With all due respect, this is one of my "triggers."

Please please please understand Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. In fact Saddam hated Bin Laden and vice versa.

There were so many soldiers who went to Iraq to fight in the name of of 9/11, because of White House press conferences -- them using the word TERRORISM in the same breath as the impending war with Iraq -- so that the average American viewer believed there was a connection. The White House came out with a statement in January, I believe, saying that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and if the public believed there was a connection because of Prez speeches, they apologized.

There have been no WMDs found, there had been no inclination that he had any target on the US -- other than his hatred for western culture. He was impotent to do anything outside of making oil deals, that didn't sit well with the western world because they were excluded from those lucrative contracts.

You argue threat of further violence. Show me evidence of such. Because this is what our current administration is trying to prove right now, and they're failing. The kid on the corner that you see each morning when you go to work could impose a "threat of further violence" -- should we lock him up too? He's just standing there.

This is the same kind of thinking that brought around the embarassing and horrific era of McCarthyism. I'd hate to see us plunge into that kind of paranoid thinking again.