Terror Alert :?: So why didn't they give this alert in 2001????

[opihimoimoi]

We had the pictures, the warnings from 8746615142639301918.045 sources, adequate time to inform our airport security teams, and Bush didn't take the time to read the damn PDF...OOps, sorry, the man don't read.

Instead, bushies crew all flew private jets....... hmmmmmmmmm

[jjmalonejr]

1. They learn from their mistakes.

Oh, wait...they don't make mistakes.

[opihimoimoi]

2. Only now they are closing the Barn Door. I luv it.

edit: BTW, didn't Bush tell us we gonna make America SAFER by attacking them terror guys in IRAQ?

[jjmalonejr]

3. Closing the barn door?

They dropped a bomb on the barn! (and then wondered where all the horses went)

[oasis]

4. 1) Warnings about "traditional hijackings" weren't worth disrupting the

the operational schedules of commercial airlines $$$$$. 2) PNAC plans needed to be set in motion by a terrorist incident.

Or, both 1 and 2.

[opihimoimoi]

8. Prolly both. 1 & 2

Goes to show how much he cares about America, She is to be USED for his Benifit. How shallow and selfish.

[Matilda]

5. LIHOP??

n/t

[libhill]

10. MIHOP

[Minstrel Boy]

6. Not only was there no alert, FBI field agents were threatened

with persecution under the National Security Act if they pursued investigations pertaining to the impending attack. And, y'know, shit like that.

[Rabrrrrrr]

7. Because BRAINDEADSHITEATER knew he needed something

to bolster his ratings, to let his crypto-fascist-hjesus-loving-evil-fuck friends pass fascist draconian anti-american laws, and to have his war with Iraq taht he said, publicly, during the campaign, that he wanted.

We weren't warned because we have an entire cabal of EVIL FUCKS, treasonous, war criminal, executable evil filth, controlling the government.

Oops, was that too negative? I meant, "because Clinton lied about security risks".

[opihimoimoi]

9. Down Boy, Down Rabb, enough, LOL :o)

ROTFLMAO

Can I get some sedatives? Its so serious and negative, but with this clown in there, All I can do is laugh... otherwise I would go nuts.

Come, we go laugh.

[Rabrrrrrr]

12. Yes, the laughter is the only way to stay sane

sometimes the situation is so absurd, one can only laugh at it.

While at the same time crying, for it means the loss of our country.

So yes, let us go laugh and enjoy the earth and the day given to us.

[guitar man]

11. why?

“The process of transformation,” the plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”

[lockdown]

13. Richard Clarke told the commission he would have done just that

Asked what he would have done before 9/11, Clarke said he would have put out a nationwide alert for (if I recall) the two on a CIA watchlist who'd entered the US.

If they get too much flack over this bit of scaremongering, I wouldn't be surprised if they point to that suggestion as justification.

[Hubert Flottz]

14. Because the FBI had been using about 50 agents to spy on.....

the clenis for 4 years and couldn't spare anyone for the little shit!

[Jacobin]

15. It's all Clintons fault

Everything. The whole mess was created by Clinton's blow job.

[JayS]

16. We would have just laughed it off, like we are doing now. n/t

n/t

[opihimoimoi]

17. But at least we would have had some kind of warning. As it was;

we got nothing, not even a whimper, a hint, nuthin.

It seems to me the Bushies wanted something to happen... not realizing the enormous magnitude of 9/11. He wanted a small time attack, a hijacking, something small. This is why Bush stayed in the school that fateful morning. He was in shock at the magnitude of the attack. He was flummoxed. Brain freeze.

Its still frozen, he never got over it.

[JayS]

18. What would the warning have been though? The only thing...

...I can think of that would have worked is something like "don't let Middle Eastern men on airplanes" or something like that. The airlines got their warning but aside from putting armed guards on planes there was not much they could do and I am not sure if they even could legally have armed guards. Of course, where was the military...

[opihimoimoi]

22. At least there would have been some kind of up grading at the airports,

we got nuthing while them pubs went private jets to wherever. "Let them eat shit" time.

[Octafish]

19. They needed their "Perle Harbor"

Simon Bar Sinister III



Richard "PNAC" Perle, that is.

And these greedy greasy unctuous oily crude slippery TURDS of the BFEE want two things:

• Money
• Power

Money comes in three forms:

• Oil
• Dope
• Gold

Power comes from:

• The ballot
• The barrel of a gun

Seems they like to use both to get what they want.

Don't take my word for it. Ignore Rupert Murdoch's:

Murdoch's war on truth: it's NOT about oil

By Margo Kingston
May 18, 2004

It’s bound to be a coincidence, but a strange little editorial in the Australian yesterday attacked my argument in Sunday’s Sun Herald that Iraq was an oil war: Oils ain't just oils, they're to die for.

"Oil is a crude theory for invasion of Iraq", the Australian’s headline declared:

The great value of conspiracy theories is that they are immune to evidence. The key argument of the Left about the invasion of Iraq - it was “all about oil” – is essentially a conspiracy theory, tied up with the oil links of the Bush family along with those of Vice-President Dick Cheney. This argument has never had any purchase on the facts. If the principle concern of the US in Iraq was oil, easily the best policy would have been to keep Saddam Hussein in power, and buy him off.

... But there is something that makes renewed cries of “It’s all about oil” sound even stranger – and, well, it’s all about oil. The price of a barrel of crude crashed through the $US40 ($57) last week for the first time in more than a decade. There are many factors behind the rise, including strong demand in China and the US, and of course the fact the OPEC cartel still controls two-thirds of known reserves. But there is also the invasion of Iraq. If US policy was “all about oil”, then helping drive up the price by a destabilising Middle East war was a strange way of pursuing it. Thanks to the US and its allies, Iraq will once again have a thriving oil industry, at which point it will almost certainly join OPEC. Our actions will end the pain for Iraqis – but not our own pain at the pumps.

What sort of ‘argument’ is happening here, and just who has no ‘purchase on the facts’?

CONTINUED...

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/18/1084783514139.html

[oasis]

23. "Perle Harbor". You are correct Octafish. Richard PNAC Perle.

[VOX]

20. Because there was no national election in 2001...

And, although it remains to be seen if there'll be an honest election in 2004, this is the kind of sad act that BushCo is putting on to play the part of being tough and prepared, as bogus as this whole charade is.

[TOhioLiberal]

21. about September or so...

...they'll announce that they 'narrowly averted' a 9/11 type terrorist attack. The whole nation (save DU and a few others) will say Awww Thanks, W, and elect him for the first time.
:nuke: bastards!