Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why Does This GOP Idiot I Know Insist I Read pp 331 &332...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
K8-EEE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-04 12:35 PM
Original message
Why Does This GOP Idiot I Know Insist I Read pp 331 &332...
Edited on Thu Aug-05-04 12:35 PM by K8-EEE
of the 9/11 commission report?

This guy is a real asshole!! It must be something he saw on Sean Hannity or something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Frodo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-04 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. As far as I can see... Pages 331 & 332
Deal with the response to the Pentagon attack.

http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-331.html
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-332.html

I don't see any RW red meat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-04 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. those links go to pgs 314 and 315 . . .here are pgs 331 and 332
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demnan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-04 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Tell him
that the Arlington County emergency workers were not even invited to the 911 Memorial held at the Pentagon - and obvious snub to an overwhelming Democratic county - in spite of their excellent response to the threat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
July Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-04 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. And tell him
about the lack of funding from Bush for the COPS program and first responders; about NYC getting one of the lowest per capita amounts (compared to other states) in homeland security funds; about the mocking of firefighters at the Bush blog; about the firefighters' union coming out for Kerry. Etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
displacedtexan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-04 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
2. No one has ever claimed that first responders didn't do a good job on 9/11
What's this guy's point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frodo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-04 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
5. OK, see post #3, the page numbering is off a bit.
This was about Clinton not having a plan for Al Qaeda? So?


"The U.S. military,
Franks said, did not have an off-the-shelf plan to eliminate the al Qaeda threat
in Afghanistan. The existing Infinite Resolve options did not, in his view,
amount to such a plan."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-04 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
7. First you need to clarify does he mean pg 331 & 332 of the REPORT
Edited on Thu Aug-05-04 01:02 PM by FoeOfBush
or pg 331-332 of the counter on the pdf version which corresponds to pgs 314-315 of the actual report.

Pgs 331-332 of the report besides the hoakum carry nothing extraordinary. Tommy Franks makes the claim to bush* that the US Military did not have an off-the-shelf plan to eliminate al queda, that Operation Infinite Resolve did not, in his view, amount to such a plan.

I believe if you search around, the plan Franks refers to was 99% of what they ended up doing.


on edit:

Or maybe he wants you to see that on pg 331 of the report they have listed the GOP as (government of Pakistan), which is surprisingly close to the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K8-EEE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-04 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Government Of Pakistan! LOL! thanks everybody.
Good one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-04 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
8. Text of pgs 331-332 9/11 Commission Report
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-348.html

page 331 WARTIME 9/11 Commission Report

propose the "elimination of terrorism as a threat to our way of life," an aim that would include pursuing other international terrorist organizations in the Middle East.35

Rice chaired a Principals Committee meeting on September 13 in the Sit-uation Room to refine how the fight against al Qaeda would be conducted.The principals agreed that the overall message should be that anyone supporting al Qaeda would risk harm. The United States would need to integrate diplomacy, financial measures, intelligence, and military actions into an over-arching strategy.The principals also focused on Pakistan and what it could do to turn the Taliban against al Qaeda.They concluded that if Pakistan decided not to help the United States, it too would be at risk.36

The same day, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage met with thePakistani ambassador to the United States, Maleeha Lodhi, and the visiting head of Pakistan's military intelligence service, Mahmud Ahmed.Armitage said that the United States wanted Pakistan to take seven steps:

· to stop al Qaeda operatives at its border and end all logistical support for Bin Ladin;
· to give the United States blanket overflight and landing rights for allnecessary military and intelligence operations;
· to provide territorial access to U.S. and allied military intelligence andother personnel to conduct operations against al Qaeda;
· to provide the United States with intelligence information;
· to continue to publicly condemn the terrorist acts;
· to cut off all shipments of fuel to the Taliban and stop recruits fromgoing to Afghanistan; and,
· if the evidence implicated bin Ladin and al Qaeda and the Talibancontinued to harbor them, to break relations with the Taliban government.37

Pakistan made its decision swiftly.That afternoon, Secretary of State Powellannounced at the beginning of an NSC meeting that Pakistani President Musharraf had agreed to every U.S. request for support in the war on terrorism.The next day, the U.S. embassy in Islamabad confirmed that Musharraf and his top military commanders had agreed to all seven demands. "Pakistan will need full US support as it proceeds with us," the embassy noted. "Musharraf said the GOP was making substantial concessions in allowing use of its territory and that he would pay a domestic price. His standing in Pakistan was certain to suffer.To counterbalance that he needed to show that Pakistan was benefiting from his decisions."38

At the September 13 NSC meeting, when Secretary Powell described Pak-istan's reply, President Bush led a discussion of an appropriate ultimatum to the Taliban. He also ordered Secretary Rumsfeld to develop a military plan againstWARTIME331Final 10-11.4pp 7/17/04

http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-349.html
page 332 9/11 Commission Report

the Taliban.The President wanted the United States to strike the Taliban, step back, wait to see if they got the message, and hit them hard if they did not. He made clear that the military should focus on targets that would influence the Taliban'sbehavior.39

President Bush also tasked the State Department, which on the followingday delivered to the White House a paper titled "Game Plan for a Political Military Strategy for Pakistan and Afghanistan." The paper took it as a given that Bin Ladin would continue to act against the United States even while under Taliban control. It therefore detailed specific U.S. demands for the Taliban: surrender Bin Ladin and his chief lieutenants, including Ayman al Zawahiri; tell the United States what the Taliban knew about al Qaeda and its operations; close all terrorist camps; free all imprisoned foreigners; and comply with all UN Security Council resolutions.40

The State Department proposed delivering an ultimatum to the Taliban:produce Bin Ladin and his deputies and shut down al Qaeda camps within 24 to 48 hours, or the United States will use all necessary means to destroy the terrorist infrastructure. The State Department did not expect the Taliban to comply. Therefore, State and Defense would plan to build an international coalition to go into Afghanistan. Both departments would consult with NATO
and other allies and request intelligence, basing, and other support from countries, according to their capabilities and resources. Finally, the plan detailed a public U.S. stance: America would use all its resources to eliminate terrorism as a threat, punish those responsible for the 9/11 attacks, hold states and other
actors responsible for providing sanctuary to terrorists, work with a coalition to eliminate terrorist groups and networks, and avoid malice toward any people, religion, or culture.41

President Bush recalled that he quickly realized that the administrationwould have to invade Afghanistan with ground troops.42But the early brief-ings to the President and Secretary Rumsfeld on military options were disappointing.43Tommy Franks, the commanding general of Central Command(CENTCOM), told us that the President was dissatisfied. The U.S. military, Franks said, did not have an off-the-shelf plan to eliminate the al Qaeda threat in Afghanistan. The existing Infinite Resolve options did not, in his view, amount to such a plan.44

All these diplomatic and military plans were reviewed over the weekend ofSeptember 15­16, as President Bush convened his war council at Camp David.45Present were Vice President Cheney, Rice, Hadley, Powell, Armitage,Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Mueller, Tenet, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and Cofer Black, chief of the DCI's Counterterrorist Center.

Tenet described a plan for collecting intelligence and mounting covert oper-ations. He proposed inserting CIA teams into Afghanistan to work with Afghan warlords who would join the fight against al Qaeda.46These CIA teams wouldact jointly with the military's Special Operations units. President Bush later
praised this proposal, saying it had been a turning point in his thinking.47
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
starroute Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-04 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. That was the Mahmud Ahmed who was bankrolling Mohammed Atta
"The principals also focused on Pakistan and what it could do to turn the Taliban against al Qaeda.They concluded that if Pakistan decided not to help the United States, it too would be at risk. The same day, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage met with the Pakistani ambassador to the United States, Maleeha Lodhi, and the visiting head of Pakistan's military intelligence service, Mahmud Ahmed."

See http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essaysaeed.html

On October 7, 2001, Pakistani President Musharraf fired Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed, the head of the ISI. The next day, some newspapers, mostly in India but also in Pakistan, shockingly said he was fired for his role in the 9/11 attacks. For instance, a Pakistani newspaper stated, "Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed has been replaced after the FBI investigators established credible links between him and Umar Sheikh, one of the three militants released in exchange for passengers of the hijacked Indian Airlines plane in 1999... Informed sources said there were enough indications with the US intelligence agencies that it was at Gen. Mahmood's instruction that Sheikh had transferred 100,000 US dollars into the account of Mohammed Atta..."

In the US, surprisingly, the only mention was in a one short piece in the Wall Street Journal, mentioning that, "The US authorities ... confirm{ed} the fact that $100,000 {was} wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the insistence of General Mahmood."



(Keep your eye on Armitage, by the way. To all appearances, he's in this shit up to his armpits.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC