Correct.
But of course it's all Bush's fault.

You're not exactly any better with your "It's all the Democrat's fault" you know.

Not outside the HuffandPuff, and Kos, it hasn't.

You're kidding me, right?

I suppose the easiest answer is to be found by looking at whom it is he's attacking.

Near as I can tell, he's attacking everyone out of some bizarre sense of "fairness".

Bit: If you are going to reply to multiple people, it would help if you indentified them as such in your posts... otherwise it comes across as so much "gobbldygook" and you come across as an idiot.

No, it portrays exasperation to me. They probably presented him every day with reports saying that an attack is likely, but they have no idea when, where or how. Bush was never warned about 9/11, he was warned that someday, somehow, somebody was going to attack something. That information is no better than if he had been told nothing. That sounds exactly like somebody covering their ass.

Correct.
But of course it's all Bush's fault.

Where do get this stuff? The alleged fact of any coordination between Saddam and AQ has been thouroghly debunked by any and all... including every independent analysis of the facts. Just like the whole WMD farce.

Not outside the HuffandPuff, and Kos, it hasn't.

How about "What steps can we realistically take to minimize our exposure"?

Such as? You keep dodging specifics. Tell us exactly what youd' have done differently, Anjin.

What respect you have for the American people, Bithead

Given what we've seen from the last several elections, my attitude is exactly on track with the reality fo the sitaution.

And who or what is it that you suppose I am defending?

I suppose the easiest answer is to be found by looking at whom it is he's attacking.

Ok Michael, the middle ground: Intel like that was already off the ground. BC's NSA was already working on AQ long before the election of 2000, so that by the transition they knew the threat was real. (how real? the INS's I have read only go so far as "real")(mind you, very redacted)

All of which goes to support by theory that both Presidents were warned so many times about non-specific threats that it was impossible for them to take any action on any of them, and the only reason the intelligence community would have in conveying these useless warnings to the President was so that they could avoid accusations when something bad eventually did happen.

And here is where you and I agree... and yet most vehemently disagree. First, you presume that I blame any "one side", when in fact I blame neither side... I blame both sides...

I don't presume that you blamed one side, and I disagree with your blaming Clinton as much as I disagree with your blaming Bush.

While I do not give GWB a pass, you presume that I give WJC a pass because I have leveled no criticism at him...

Again, I presumed no such thing.

but what specific criticism do you level at WJC's admin that do not equally apply to the Bush Admin? Or to be more specific, what excuses do you give the Bush Admin, that do not equally apply to Clinton's?

I have no criticism of Clinton's decisions on this matter, he and his successor made the best decisions possible given the limited nature of their information and resources.

Last I checked, it is not the province of intel to provide alternatives, only to provide facts as best they can ascertain.

I was referring more towards the arm-chair Presidents like you and anjin-san who say that one side of the other (or both) should have done something different, without offering what form that something could have taken.

Don't blame me if you now find yourself defending the indefensible.

And who or what is it that you suppose I am defending?

Intelligence like that takes years to even get off the ground. If Bush had ordered all available resources to focus on AQ in August, they'd still be in the process of re-structuring the departmental org charts on 9/11.

Ok Michael, the middle ground: Intel like that was already off the ground. BC's NSA was already working on AQ long before the election of 2000, so that by the transition they knew the threat was real. (how real? the INS's I have read only go so far as "real")(mind you, very redacted)

If the intelligence community felt this was as imminent as that, why didn't they do something about it in August? The President doesn't sign off on their day to day operation.

No he does not, but he does sign off on their prioities, and lacking that, they can do nothing more. They are an intel agency.... nothing more.

#2: What is the point of hindsight, if one can not look back at the things that were done wrong, so that we do not make the same mistakes again? To say that "that is just 20/20 hindsight" precludes us from learning from the lessons of the past.

The problem is your apparent assumption that just because something went wrong, somebody must have done something wrong. Sometimes bad things happen even when everybody made the best decision they could.

And here is where you and I agree... and yet most vehemently disagree. First, you presume that I blame any "one side", when in fact I blame neither side... I blame both sides...

While I do not give GWB a pass, you presume that I give WJC a pass because I have leveled no criticism at him... but what specific criticism do you level at WJC's admin that do not equally apply to the Bush Admin? Or to be more specific, what excuses do you give the Bush Admin, that do not equally apply to Clinton's?

To prove that point, just look at the lack alternatives being suggested, for the amount of criticism there is about the decisions taken.

Last I checked, it is not the province of intel to provide alternatives, only to provide facts as best they can ascertain. Take note... intel does not deal in facts alone... they deal in facts, rumor, and innuendo... Again, it is an imperfect science (art?) at best.

For sure there are lessons to be learned, but none of them are about what President Bush did wrong between January and September 2001 in regards to Al Qaeda.

But here you are putting on blinders of the worst sort, when you say, "none of them are about what President Bush did wrong between January and September 2001 in regards to Al Qaeda"...

I say again, it is not about Bush or Clinton, but about Bush AND Clinton... But Bush is the one who said, "OK, now you have covered your asses."

Don't blame me if you now find yourself defending the indefensible.

Michael, I respect you and your point of view... But I can not go along with that (and I honestly don't think you do either). So we will have to "agree to disagree on that".

Fair enough, neither of us were there, nor do we have any particular insight into what the President was thinking at the time.

Because he was warned about an imminent attack in 8/01... Admittedly, it was short on specifics, intel is an imperfect science (ART???) but he WAS warned.... and said, "OK, you've covered your asses."

Look, if I told you every week that an earthquake was imminent somewhere in the US, and then one day there is an 7.0 in Vermont, that doesn't mean you were warned, and it certainly doesn't mean that you should have done something to protect Vermont.

But Michael, you miss my point entirely: #1, I am not talking about 9/10/01... I am talking about Aug of '01... when there was still a chance to get an intel leg up on AQ. No it would not have changed 9/11, but maybe we would have had Bin Laden with in a month? (doubtful at best, but MAYBE????)(we will never know)

Intelligence like that takes years to even get off the ground. If Bush had ordered all available resources to focus on AQ in August, they'd still be in the process of re-structuring the departmental org charts on 9/11. If the intelligence community felt this was as imminent as that, why didn't they do something about it in August? The President doesn't sign off on their day to day operation.

#2: What is the point of hindsight, if one can not look back at the things that were done wrong, so that we do not make the same mistakes again? To say that "that is just 20/20 hindsight" precludes us from learning from the lessons of the past.

The problem is your apparent assumption that just because something went wrong, somebody must have done something wrong. Sometimes bad things happen even when everybody made the best decision they could. To prove that point, just look at the lack alternatives being suggested, for the amount of criticism there is about the decisions taken.

And there are more than a few lessons to be learned here (and I say this in the most non-partisan way I can).

For sure there are lessons to be learned, but none of them are about what President Bush did wrong between January and September 2001 in regards to Al Qaeda.

Somehow or other, "ok, you've covered your ass" portrays a rather cavalier attitude towards the defense of American lives. Don't you agree?

No, it portrays exasperation to me.

Michael, I respect you and your point of view... But I can not go along with that (and I honestly don't think you do either). So we will have to "agree to disagree on that".

Bush was never warned about 9/11,

Because he was warned about an imminent attack in 8/01... Admittedly, it was short on specifics, intel is an imperfect science (ART???) but he WAS warned.... and said, "OK, you've covered your asses."

Of course, why didn't Bill Clinton think of that? Because before 9/11 nobody saw Al Qaeda as an existential threat that would warrant such a commitment of resources away from known actors.

BC did think of that, and tried (or his NSA people did) to convey the urgency through out the transition process. I do not blame him... nor do I blame GWB for their inefectiveness (transitions are messy). but August of '01 is definitely at the back end of the transition and GWB had his own team (hopefully) in place by then. They said, "an attack is imminent" and he blew them off.

I would not have, and I seriously doubt you would either. Hindsight is always 20/20, but there wasn't anything on 9/10 that would give sufficient reason to do much of anything counter-terrorism related in the US.

Well then, thank god neither of us were POTUS at that time. (and I definitely would have done something other than said "OK, you've covered your asses...")

But Michael, you miss my point entirely: #1, I am not talking about 9/10/01... I am talking about Aug of '01... when there was still a chance to get an intel leg up on AQ. No it would not have changed 9/11, but maybe we would have had Bin Laden with in a month? (doubtful at best, but MAYBE????)(we will never know)

#2: What is the point of hindsight, if one can not look back at the things that were done wrong, so that we do not make the same mistakes again? To say that "that is just 20/20 hindsight" precludes us from learning from the lessons of the past.

And there are more than a few lessons to be learned here (and I say this in the most non-partisan way I can).

Somehow or other, "ok, you've covered your ass" portrays a rather cavalier attitude towards the defense of American lives. Don't you agree?

No, it portrays exasperation to me. They probably presented him every day with reports saying that an attack is likely, but they have no idea when, where or how. Bush was never warned about 9/11, he was warned that someday, somehow, somebody was going to attack something. That information is no better than if he had been told nothing. That sounds exactly like somebody covering their ass.

As to what could he do... How about, "I want you to focus on the threat of AlQuada. Put every available spare resource you can into the collection on intel and the analysis there of. Also, I want you to go back through everything you now have, and see if there is anything we might have missed." It would not have changed 9/11, but at least we would have been a few more steps ahead of the game when it happened.

Of course, why didn't Bill Clinton think of that? Because before 9/11 nobody saw Al Qaeda as an existential threat that would warrant such a commitment of resources away from known actors.

At least, that is what I would have done... And I suspect, so would have you.

I would not have, and I seriously doubt you would either. Hindsight is always 20/20, but there wasn't anything on 9/10 that would give sufficient reason to do much of anything counter-terrorism related in the US.

You're assuming he didn't already know the answer to that question.

Given what we know about this President, is that a wild assumption?

Perhaps he could have asked for proposals on how to prevent it, how to prepare for it, or how to react to it.

To reiterate...IMHO, Bush 41 should have told the UN to get stuffed, and taken Iraq all the way down.

Which only goes to show that Bush 41 was a hell of a lot smarter than his son.

AT the very least the AQ training sites wouldn't have sprung up, with Saddam's help, in Southern Iraq.

Where do get this stuff? The alleged fact of any coordination between Saddam and AQ has been thouroghly debunked by any and all... including every independent analysis of the facts. Just like the whole WMD farce.

For starters, he could have said something besides, "ok, you've covered your ass". That is a pretty rough dismissal from the President.

They came to the President with a non-specific threat, with no proposals on how to prevent it, or how to prepare for it, or even how to react to it. So again, anjin-san, what should he have done? What would you have done in that position?

Michael: While I agree with you that nothing GWB could have done at that point could have possibly stopped 9/11, I have to disagree with you strongly on your apparent position that he did all he could do. Somehow or other, "ok, you've covered your ass" portrays a rather cavalier attitude towards the defense of American lives. Don't you agree?

As to what could he do... How about, "I want you to focus on the threat of AlQuada. Put every available spare resource you can into the collection on intel and the analysis there of. Also, I want you to go back through everything you now have, and see if there is anything we might have missed." It would not have changed 9/11, but at least we would have been a few more steps ahead of the game when it happened.

At least, that is what I would have done... And I suspect, so would have you.

For starters, he could have said something besides, "ok, you've covered your ass". That is a pretty rough dismissal from the President.

They came to the President with a non-specific threat, with no proposals on how to prevent it, or how to prepare for it, or even how to react to it. So again, anjin-san, what should he have done? What would you have done in that position?

How about "What steps can we realistically take to minimize our exposure"?

You're assuming he didn't already know the answer to that question.

So I would ask you, what more could the President have done given the information available?

For starters, he could have said something besides, "ok, you've covered your ass". That is a pretty rough dismissal from the President. No wonder most of his administration went by with everyone afraid to tell him anything he did not want to hear.

How about "What steps can we realistically take to minimize our exposure"?

More like 45%.
There's around 10% that etnds to move accoring to wind direction and phases of the moon.... and who gets promised what by whom.

What respect you have for the American people, Bithead. It's a wonder anybody ever disagrees with you.

Still, it would have been nice if the President had said, after being warned, "Lets make sure we are doing everything we can do".

The implication being that the President didn't do everything he could to prevent it. So I would ask you, what more could the President have done given the information available?

It is also clear that the intelligence community was actively alarmed by the summer of 2001. Did they fail to communicate this, or was their message simply ignored?

The problem wasn't that nobody thought an attack was going to happen, the problem that nobody knew when, where or how it was going to happen. If anything, the would have erected tighter security and blast barriers at ground level, completely useless in stopping a jet liner.

Right, 53% of the people of this country are stupid partisans.

More like 45%.
There's around 10% that etnds to move accoring to wind direction and phases of the moon.... and who gets promised what by whom.