Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Ohmygod!

Listen to yourself, George. "Several months".....the report you are having such a fit over was received near the end of August. You are talking about a period of about 3 weeks, not several months. Secondly, the FAA *was* advised, as was other necessary agencies, including the House Intelligence Committee - with its several democrat members. The problem was the information was not specific, in spite of what you seem to choose to believe, which comes up next.

Quote

And what would have happened if the Administration went public completely with this, especially the reports of possible attacks on New York and Washington -- apparently the reports with this explicit, that they named the target cities?

You need to get your news from somewhere other than that which is provided to you by the Communist News Network. The report did not give specific cities, in fact it led them to believe the danger was in overseas cities, not here. And 24 hours after Bush got it, the House intelligence committee got it. If the report was so specific, why didn't some of your democrat buddies catch it? It apparently was so vague they didn't even remember they had seen the report until *after* they had made fools of themselves by running around claiming they had uncovered "the next watergate" - a direct quote. And even then, no one had any way of knowing that the hijackers would use the planes as missiles. They thought it would be a plane hijacked overseas with demands to be taken to some other overseas location, or for ransom. Not missiles.

Quote

No one knows for sure, of course. But what we do know is that with no warning at all, no one could take any measures at all.

No, we don't know that. What we *do* know is that this was a daily briefing, it was mostly analytical in nature, did not lead anyone including the House Intelligence Committee or anyone at the FAA, the various senators and congressmen who were told about it, or the FBI or CIA who also knew about it, to think the hijackings would occur on our soil, or that they would be used as missiles. You simply have your facts wrong. I'll tell you why, but you won't like it.......you're relying on left-friendly media who are looking for things to bash the right with, instead of looking for facts, and you're doing it because it fits your own predisposed views. Try widening your sources of information, and opening your mind.

Quote

So, why was there no warning issued even to the airports and airlines? Obviously, a mistake in judgement -- a mistake that caused the loss of 3000 lives, the start of a war, curtailment of civil liberties, billions of dollars being spent on security machines and devices, millions of people being inconvenienced, a massive downturn in the economy for a few months, national and worldwide angst, fear in the hearts of the American people, etc. etc.

Last time I checked George, the FAA *was* the one you notified if you wanted the airlines and airports to be aware of something. That was done. But again, the information was not of the kind to make them think an attack would occur on US soil. It led them to believe it would occur overseas, but even that was vague.

As to the rest of this statement - give me a break. It is now a known fact that the recession started nearly a year before Bush took office. Yes, 9/11 added to things, but that wasn't the cause of it. Think back, George. Any economist will tell you that by the time people are talking about a recession, it's nearly over. And the left started talking about a recession the minute Bush declared his candidacy. They blamed the "slowdown" on the prospect of "another Bush" possibly getting in the White House. When he won the primary, they blamed "the slowdown" on that. When it got near election time, they claimed Bush was *causing* the recession by talking about it (even though they had been talking about it for months as they used it against Bush and Republicans in general) and when he won the election they decided that they too would talk about it, even though they had previously claimed that talking about it was causing it - but they now wanted to claim it was caused by Bush. Now, you want to claim the recession was "caused" by 9/11. When will you Democrats ever figure out that the recession began brewing 2 years before, and hit full steam during the last 6-9 months of Clinton's term?

Quote

You can call the criticism simply political all you want. You can claim that this is just the opposition gleefully attacking a supposedly popular president for political gain and therefore should be ignored. And you can all pick apart my comments all you want, saying that specific comments are innuendo, misinterpretations or whatever.

OK. But by the way..... your bias is showing. Bush isn't a "supposedly" popular president. He's *definitely* a popular president. And that just kills you democrats. It also grates your nerves when you read how the majority of people, when asked, now say they don't like Algore.

Quote

None of this negates the fact this was a horrible mistake in judgement by the Bush2 Administration of massive proportions.

No, the horrible mistake was when the democrats decided to use it for their own political gain. It has caused them to look like the fools they are, and is bringing to light the real facts, which is that 1>it was a purely analytical report of vague possibilities with no specific locations or methods mentioned, but that even the proper agencies including the democrats in the House intelligence committee considered to be more likely to occur overseas, and 2>some of the very ones who had been given the report and obviously did nothing with it either were the first ones to jump on the bandwagon as they gleefully talked about "the next watergate". Your democrats have shown themselves to be exactly what many of us on the right say they are - purely interested in their own political future, and willing to sacrifice the good of the nation to insure their political futures.

Quote

But there are others, far more serious people, who see this for what it is and recognize people must be held accountable, that we must understand what went wrong and why so it does not happen again. And if this tarnishes or even destroys the image of Bush2, then so be it. But because it does tarnish him does not make the criticism and questioning and investigations simply political. It is what keeps this country strong. To stop the investigationsbecause of the political damage it may do to Bush2 would be wrong -- THAT would be playing politics.

Our government officials should be held accountable for their mistakes in judgement. Some we accept, some we don't.

The question we all have to ask opurselves is whether this mistake on the part of the Bush2 Administration is one we accept, sweep under the rug and live with the consequences as if Bush2 simply garbled some more words or if we think this type of mistake is simply unacceptable.

I see....would these supposed "serious people" be the ones who did not ask for this same kind of investigation when, after the same kind of advance warning as we are talking about here, Clinton did nothing in 1993 and the WTC was attacked the first time? Would these "serious people" be the ones who did not ask for this same kind of investigation when a few year later another report of this same kind was given to Clinton saying terrorists were planning to attack ships in harbors, and he did nothing, and (I forget the name of the ship right now) one was blown up while in dock overseas in a location that yet another report of this same type as we are talking about warned him that this port was a prime possibility for one of these attacks? There are a few more I could give you George, but these two make the point.

Also, I assume you were in complete agreement that Clinton should have been impeached, then tried for treason, since you are so firm in your opinion that our leaders should be held accountable for their lapses in judgment. I am assuming of course that you would categorize decisions made with full knowledge of harming the country to be included in this standard as well. Now we can talk about the purposeful selling out our national security to China, the purposeful decimation of our military, and the purposeful selling out our rights to the UN.

Quote

To me, the impact of this mistake is NOT acceptable.

Was the impact of the above mentioned mistakes acceptable, however? I mean.....it *was* a democrat who made them after all, so I guess we shouldn't be mentioning them.....we should understand that the man was just too busy getting a Lewinsky to be bothered with having to make decisions like this......

Quote

A President is chosen to make decisions -- and when he makes ones which create such a catastrophe, I have no trouble pointing that out, blaming him for it and using it to evaluate whether he is a good President for this country or not. He is elected to make decisions and give direction to keep this country safe -- that is his most basic job. And when he bungles his most basic job of keeping this country safe to this extent, his ability and acceptability to govern must be questioned.

So where is your outrage toward Herr Clinton? When he bombed an aspirin factory to take attention away from his impeachment woes that resulted from his lying under oath, when he sat on his hands (or Monica's face) instead of addressing the reports he was getting about terrorists blowing up the WTC, the reports of terrorists planning to blow up a ship in port, and on and on and on......where was your outrage?

It is hypocritical to fail to address these issues, or make excuses for them, while you sit in righteous judgment over the little puff of smoke you just got fed by the rabid Socialist party we used to fondly refer to as the Democratic Party.

As I see it, those who leaned toward the Democratic party and who have an open mind ought to be having serious questions right about now concerning their past favorable views of the political left. This entire episode has shown just how willing they are to sacrifice the good of the nation for political advantage.

OK, I'll give in. It was just a mistake in judgement. Bush2 should not be faulted for not making sure the right questions were asked. Bush2 should not be faulted for not making sure his appointees followed through on what was done. Bush2 should not be faulted for not having aides who had the understanding of the significance of the warnings. Bush2 should not be faulted for having aides who did not interpret the information correctly.

No matter how massive and terrible the consequences, it is not fair, with 20/20 hindsight, to attack him for mistakes in judgement. After all, he was only in charge.

Along these lines, I'm also going to overlook the terrible impacts decisions of the Catholic Bishops have had. I am not going to criticize them for not getting the proper information about the nature of the sexual abuser or for not having assistants to advise them of the seriousness and the pain or to having seen the pattern and taken care of it. No matter how massive and terrible the consequences, it is not fair, with 20/20 hindsight, to attack these men for mistakes in judgement. After all, they were only in charge.

And I am not going to attack the Enron executives for destroying the pensions of 100o's of people, for having destroyed a company and and an accounting firm leaving 1000's unemployed. I am not going to attackm for them for not listening to people around them that what they were doing was dangerous and questionable and possibly illegal. No matter how massive and terrible the consequences, it is not fair, with 20/20 hindsight, to attack these men for mistakes in judgement. After all, they were only in charge.

In fact, I am not going to criticize any top manager for any failure in his organization, no matter how catastrophic the consequences, simply because he made decisions that were wrong, based on incomplete information, or did not see the need to ask other questions or demand more information, or did not take actions which would have prevented the consequences. No matter how massive and terrible the consequences, it is not fair, with 20/20 hindsight, to attack these men for mistakes in judgement. After all, they were only in charge.

Quite clearly, the person in charge should not be held responsible for what his organization does --even if he was briefed on what was happening. It is not his reposnibility to ask the right questions, to make sure he gets as much information as possible and then to follow through to make sure his directives are followed. After all, this is just a mistake in judgement and no matter how massive and terrible the consequences, it is not fair, with 20/20 hindsight, to attack these men for mistakes in judgement. After all, they were only in charge.

Who says that Bush made a mistake in judgment? I am not prepared to concede that.

Actually, the first time the prospect was raised about Al Quede using airplanes was in 1995, by the Phillipine government, after a raid on Ramsi Yousef's former hideout.

It was again raised in a U.S. government memo in 1999.

The intelligence referred to in this latest Democrat-generated political attack was disseminated within 24 hours to the Senate Intelligence Committee. John Edwards, Democartic hopeful from North Carolina, has admitted such, after an initial statement that he knew nothing about it.

I never could stomach Free Willy Clinton. He is the typical sleazy Southern political operative, and why so many people did not immediately see through the smoke and mirrors is beyond me. Reminded me a lot of Edwin Edwards, former Governor of Louisiana, who is desperately fighting to stay out of the Federal Penitentiary for the rest of his life.

But with even my nadir opinion of Clinton, does one honestly believe the President of the United States would not take action if he had concrete information about a terrorist act that would take the lives of over three thousand Americans? If one would believe that of Bush, yet not of Clinton, it shows a hatred that blinds one to the truth, no matter where the truth comes from.

Agreed. I do not think, nor do I know of anyone who thinks, that Bush2 knew about the attack and chose to do nothing about it. (This is an interesting defense by the Bush2 Admin, since no one has accused him of this)

The issue people are raising is one of whether he did what he needed to do so that he could make a good decision.

Of course, as everyone on here has said, we cannot question a decision now, after all these months after the action (or lack thereof) occured). Using 20/20 hindsight is not fair. Of course, I am not sure when one questions a decision except after one knows what it is and one has seen the consequences of that decision -- but I guess smarter people than I can determine whether a decision was good or not at some other point rather than after its effects are known.

But, as JBryan says, we need not concede that Bush made a mistake in judgement. No matter the alternatives he could have had (and for all we know were presented to him) and what other options he could have exercised to get more information or consider alternatives, I guess I will have to concede that he made the best decision he could based on the information he had and his understanding of what the right thing to do was.

Which is also what the Bishops did and what Enron Execs did and what other leaders of organizations do. Truly, I doubt anyone sets out to make a bad decision or make a mistake in judgement.

And if after time passes it becomes clear that an alternative course of action might have resulted in a better, perhaps MUCH better, outcome, we cannot criticize the decision with 20/20 hindsight because it is not fair to question a decision after it is made and we have suffered from it.

So, whether or not the decision maker asks the right questions, his appointees are the best ones to interpret the information properly, he forces the organization he heads to get him the information he needs -- we can't hold HIM responsible just because he's in charge.

No, JBryan is right, this is not a mistake in judgement -- he did the best he could do what what he had. And so does everyone else. I cannot be critical of Bush2 in this matter. The way he handled this resulted in just a small attack and a small war and small incursions into our civil rights and the people who lost someone should not be that upset -- after all, people die every day.

No need to be critical of him just because of the effects that might have been avoided had the White House handled this differently. Or to be critical of the Bishops because they could have handled it differently. or Enron Execs or anyone else. They all made the decisions they made and the effects of their decisions should not have any bearing on whether a situation was handled properly, a good decision was made or there was a mistake in judgement.

Of course, I am also wondering why the question of whether Bush2 handled this well has anything to do with Bill Clinton. But I guess it must -- because so many of you keep bringing that up.

There is really no comparison between the decisions Bush made and these other cases you cite and if you can't see that then this discussion is pointless. Clearly there is an attempt here to hold Bush responsible for these attacks and I find it actually despicable. Unless you can show me evidence that he willfully ignored clear evidence of an impending attack then all of your clever locutions fall under their own weight.

To say that he is responsible simply because he is in charge misses the point by a country mile since what he should be accountable for is any mistakes made by him or anyone under his control. No such mistakes have been shown to have been made.

Therefore, in absence of any evidence that he did not do all that could be reasonably expected of him to do given the information available then what exactly is he to be held accountable for? This whole discussion gets sillier and sillier as you retreat into ever more indefensible accusations. Maybe you should quit while you are ahead.

By the way, the discussion about Bill Clinton may be irrelevant in terms of the present situation but it is instructive to note the reactions of those now tossing accusations about to the real evidence that Clinton did ignore clear warnings and loss of life resulted. It's that little hypocrisy thing you see.

We keep bringing it up George, because you can't seem to see how biased you are and we're trying to show you. You usually try to present yourself as being in the middle of the road, the one who wants to argue the great "grey area". But you bit the big one this time by picking up the latest turd the left dropped, and you got caught factually challenged. Given the quite large amount of facts which prove your statement wrong, and the absolute lack of proof to support your statement, you had to concede to the facts. But even when you do you do so by conceding with sarcastic remarks and comparisons.

I think that's what is referred to as a "yellow dog democrat" - right or wrong, sing the democrat song.

The democratic party is dysfunctional - they do all kinds of stupid things, then accuse other people of doing them and demanding an investigation.

I almost wish Bush would get caught getting a Lewinsky so I could listen to Tom Daschle of the Obstructionist wing of the Socialist party as he twisted into contortions trying to figure out how to have Bush impeached without looking like a bigger fool than he already does.

Here's one for you to work on George. With Clinton raking in millions now, tell me how the left justifies the fact that not only did Clinton not make the slightest attempt to give any financial help to those who were ruined providing him with alibies, he now won't pay his attorneys. And has anyone else noticed that now that he doesn't have to use that fake lip biting pose he so often used when giving public speeches, now every time the camera hits him he looks like a gas station attendant from Mudskip Alabama attending his annual Moose Lodge convention?

In a time of war (indeed we are at war) I find it appalling and downright un-American to read some of the things the George is spitting out.

The Dems are doing everything they can to destroy a descent man, Bush (no I don't agree w/all everything he does) and at the same time putting our national security at risk...Sadam H. is probably laughing his ugly ass off!!!!

I would like to have heard the Dems complaints if Bush would have instituted new strict security measures based on evidence that could as well have been propaganda for the enemy---what was Bush to do----these guys get reports like this every week...do we cripple ourselves based on info that is not specific or neccessarily credible in any way---in that scenerio the terrorist wins.

I'm, not laughing and I think George and the like ought think about how fortunate they are to be living in this country.

The reason Clinton is germaine is because of the original allegation put forth by the originator of this thread. The idea is put forth quite bluntly that George W. Bush did not act properly on information he supposedly had in his possession prior to the attacks.

It is now glaringly clear that this same information had been available for years. Neither Bush nor Clinton, felt that the threat was credible enough to warrant massive federal intervention.

If one wants to argue that Bush's information would have been better had not Congress hamstrung the HUMINT function of all the intelligence agencies, or that Torrecelli's gutting of the CIA's policy of hiring unsavory characters to spy on their compadres, or that the CIA and FBI do not talk to each other about terrorism ( a leftover from the Carter administration), then we may find common ground.

Other than that, the argument that Bush dropped the ball on 911, is trying desperately to make chicken salad out of chicken ****.

Have a nice weekend!

Thank you, Mat D. I was wondering how long it would be take for me to be called a traitor for raising questions about the President's decisions. And you did not disappoint me.

Now, explain to me again what is wrong with a dictatorship that does not allow freedom of speech to criticize the government over major policies?

Or perhaps, as long as our government goes to war, there is no difference between the US and a such a dictatorship on free speech issues.

I think many of you do not understand the issue here. The issue is whether or not Bush2's White House is capable of making fully informed decisions on major issues of primary import to the US -- and whether it made a fully informed decision in this case.

It is becoming clear that there was a lot of information available to the White House that it either did not seek to get, because 1) it was not given to the White House by others under the control of the White House, 2) was given but no one in the White House was capable of putting it together or 3) that the White House had all the necessary information but did not analzye it properly.

Whichever way this falls, it brings into question the decision making process of the White House -- which includes the gathering of information to make that decision.

I do not believe Bush2 chose to make a bad decision. I just think that it is now clear his decision to take the few, minor actions he took were inadequate. Because they were inadequate, 911 occurred and all of the fallout has come.

No doubt, had Mr. Bush been given other information, he might have taken other actions. But he was not given the information (apparently) -- by the very same people who work for him under people he, himself, appointed.

Who then is to be held responsible? Some middle level manager in the FBI? Or the man who runs things. Who is responsble for setting up the structure by which the President analyzes alternatives and makes decisions? The President himself is!

No, JBryan I do not see a difference between Buish2 in this regards and the Bishops or the Enron Execs. If the Manager runs a flawed decision making operation which leads to flawed decisions by him -- the executive must be held responsible because HE is the one who set up that process.

George Bush is not an evil man. But it appears, at the very least, that he did not set up a structure which ensured he would get the information he needs to have to make decisions about something as basic to his job as the security of the US.

If he failed this time, how can we be sure he will not fail again? And, do we really want to have a man with a failed decision making process to be making decisions about a war which, as everyone agrees, is a wide open process not defined and with no specific end in sight -- and no way to know when the end is coming? And do we want a man with a flawed decision making process making many other important decisions for us?

And I thought I was going to walk away from this one....

George, you are not so ignorant, as to not understand how government works. Government has an organizational memory, they are called federal employees. These guys are there year in, year out, doing all of the dirty little jobs of any organization. The same type of briefings have been churned out for Presidents and their staffs for more than 100 years. The nameless guys behind the desks at the FBI, CIA, NSA, interpret their data and report it up the line. It doesn't matter who occupies the Oval Office.

Your problem is that you are uncomfortable with Bush's decision making process. Not the American people. After 911, he has been judged by the people of the United States and has been shown to have "the right stuff". Consequently, Al Gore, nor any of other Democratic Presidential hopefuls, have the chance of a snowball in hades of defeating Bush in 2004.

And that's what is really scaring the heck out of you, isn't it George? :p :p :p

I had hoped to avoid doing this but since you choose to remain obtuse I will take you by your hand and show you what I think you see already.

When you refer to the decisions made by these Bishops and the Enron managers the question is WHY did they make the decisions they made. What was motivating them in their decision making process. The answer, of course, is that they made these decisions in order to cover their ass. Or, in the case of Enron, it was a combination of that and an attempt to defraud investors.

Comparing these decisions with those made by Bush (they might actually more properly be compared with those made by Clinton) is a deliberate attempt to confuse the issue, drawing parallels between what was clear malfeasance and what, so far, has not even been shown to be a mistake or error in judgment. You keep insisting that he be held responsible for the results of errors of his subordinates but show me what errors were made that resulted in these terrorist attacks being allowed to happen. And try to do it without resorting to vague generalities about information not being handled correctly. That does not show how any action taken differently would have averted 9/11.

This is going nowhere and your obtuseness only increases with each post.

Read this link George. It seems that 1999 was when a briefing was written with the most specific details of slamming planes into buildings. It describes what happened on 9/11 almost like it was written after the fact.

Now who was president in 1999, George? Do you recall the airline industry and the military being put on high alert in 1999? Do you remember a public announcement by Bubba Clinton warning everyone like you claim Bush should have done? And do you have any evidence to indicate that Bubba Clinton set anything in motion to begin a defense against terrorists?

Oh!! Here's another one George! It seems that in addition to being warned in such detail in 1999, Clinton was also warned in just as much detail in 1994, but he had it hushed up and details removed!! Seems like if Bush should be getting as much heat as your democrat buddies are giving him, then Clinton should be brought up on treason since he not only knew the details as far back as 1994, but he had more details, and he altered them and hid them from Congress. That is, if you're willing to hold him to the same standards you have set out for Bush.

It would be hypocritical for you to not admit straight out that it was in fact Bill Clinton and the Democratic party who failed to act and, if you want to blame someone for 9/11, that Bill Clintoid is responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Jolly

You are right. I am uncomfortable with Bush2's decision making process. Thank you for being one of the few who understands the issue I am trying to make.

I do not agree with you that the American people are comfortable with it. Yes, his popularity is high, but there has been no real debate in this country since last September. It began on domestic issues in March and that was when his popularity began to fall -- and has fallen by 15-20%, not a good sign, even if it remains high. Now the debate is going to begin on his handling of 9/11. Once the people have heard the debate and taken it in and digested it, let's see if they remain comfortable.

JBryan,

I agree with you that the most recent decisions of the Bishop's has been to save their asses. However, I don't believe this has been the case over the last 20 years. I think for most of this time they did what they thought was best for the organization they were heading up. Their decision making process was flawed because they did not think it through and get all of the input they needed and because their priorities were all screwed up. They are now being attacked, and have gone to a defensive mode, because of the terrible impact these flawed decision making processes had. And they should be held accountable, even if they thought they were doing what was best at the time.

From all that has come out in the past two days, it sounds as if there was a lot of information out there that the Bush2 team should have known about but, according to them, they did not. As Bush2 himself said today, had he known this was going to happen, he would have done anything needed to prvent it. I believe him. I think any President would do that.

Given all of the information out there, then, why was he not informed of the immediacy of the threat. Sen Feinstein says she was trying in vain to get the Bush2 team to react to what she was informed of on the Intelligence Committee -- that an attack was imminent. If she was concerned about this based on what she knew, why did Bush2's apparatus not see what she saw?

Or was the information there but misunderstood? Or just what? This represents a major concern about his decision making apparatus. And since his actions or lack thereof may have contributed to catastrophic events and changes, one has to ask if one can support a leader's whose processes are that flawed.

Larry,

I have not blamed Bush2 or anyone for what happened on 9/11. The most I have said is that a different reaction by Bush2 might have kept it form happening. I have simply raised the question about whether what we now know about his decision making processes show his decisions about 9/11 and any possible prevention actions to be inadequate. Why do you then defend Bush2 with nothing more than attacks on Bill Clinton?

I accept the fact that there was a lot of information that came out during the Clinton Administration. I also recall all of the work Clinton did to forestall attacks on the US by Al; Quaeda during the Millenium celebrations. Obviously someone at that point was gathering enough information and presenting it to the President to forestall these attacks -- including his making sure people were arrested when they were trying to cross the Canadian border.

Could/should Clinton have done more? Probably. But if this information was there under Clinton, it was still there under Bush2. Since I assume that Bush2 would have acted more foreceully before 9/11 if he understood the immediacy of the threat -- it appears that the Bush2 decision making process failed.

Even the Administration agreed today that they did not have all of the information that was there under Clinton. Why not? Who in the process failed to bring this all to Bush2's attention? His process obviously did not work. He did not have the information he needed to make an informed decision. He needs to be held accountable for this failure in the process just as the Bishops are being held accountable for their failed processes.

How can we now trust that it is any better, if the major example we have to point to showing how it works is so flawed and the results of these flaws have been so horrendous?

George, you have twisted this thing up like a pretzel in order to find some way, any way that President Bush should be held accountable for 911 and the best of your arguments really boil down to "it happened on his watch". You still have not provided us with any examples of any specific information (aside from opportunistic comments from Dianne Feinstein which are also nonspecific) that should have led him to believe that an attack was imminent and the nature of that attack. Is Dianne Feinstein attempting to say that she had specific information of an imminent attack and she was trying desperately to get the Bush administration to listen? Please. That doesn't pass the giggle test except it is no laughing matter when Democrats, desparate for an election issue, attempt to undermine the leadership abilities of the man who is prosecuting a war. Shameful stuff. What do we really know at this point? We have reports of information that something may have been afoot but nothing concrete. It is clear that he did issue alerts internally but given the nature of the information in hand, what else could he have done. What exactly was he supposed to have done differently than what he did. Answer that question and stop with the tomfoolery about managers being responsible for poor decisions. WHAT poor decisions.

Here are the comments from Dianne Feinstein which, in part, includes the following:

"In the wake of the September 11th attacks, the issue is too important to our nation to engage in the kind of politics Mr. Fleischer is practicing. I, for one, do not believe that any of our nation's leadership had specific information last summer to know when and what kind of attack to anticipate."

"What I said last July on CNN was that I was deeply concerned as to whether our house was in order to prevent a terrorist attack. My work on the Intelligence Committee and as chair of the Technology and Terrorism Subcommittee had given me a sense of foreboding for some time. I had no specific data leading to a possible attack." (emphasis mine)

The rest of this document appears to be some very clever second guessing crafted to appear as though the administration was ignoring appeals from Sen. Feinstein that she was making based on her feelings (expressed now after the fact) that something terrible could happen. These people are really disgusting in their opportunism, once again, in their attempts to cast vague aspersions (for political reasons) while simultaneously decrying the other side's partisanship. Whatever Sen. Feinstein may have said or felt months before 911 can always be made to, now after the fact, appear prophetic when, in fact, these sorts of comments are handed out to the media by legislators on a regular basis up to the present.

Try this one, George. It seems that the democrats have opened a can of worms that is about to eat them alive. This is an article about a man who is daring the democrats to subpeona him to testify in their investigation on "who knew what when".

Click here

What do you bet the democrats will be too chicken to take him up on his offer?

George,

you said:" Thank you, Mat D. I was wondering how long it would be take for me to be called a traitor for raising questions about the President's decisions. And you did not disappoint me."

#1--I never called you a traitor (another misinterpretation of the written word) #2--you don't know me so how can you say I didn't dissappoint you (that's a ridiculous statement) #3---you have every right to express your opinion, in fact, I encourage you to continue; you are making my case that you should thank God you can live in a country where everyone has the right to say what they believe....but because you believe it, it doesn't make it so..

I hope you can find some happiness somewhere, obviously you haven't found it here.

JBryant, thanks for the quotes from Senator Feinstein. You may think she was being opportunistic, but the ONLY reason she said anything was because the White House itself brought he rinto this debate by using her as an example that the Congress had information as well.

So, since the White House wants to compare their knowledge with her's, let's take a look at how her decision making worked compared to theirs.

In her interview of July on CNN she specifically stated that, given the information she had received as a member of the Intelligence Committee, she was very concerned that Osama Bin Laden would launch a major terrorist attack on US soil within the next 2-3 months.

Now, if she was briefed and came to this conclusion, and then tried to get the White House to follow up on this, why did not the White House also come to this conclusion, or at least consider it a possibility and take some sort of action?

You have dismissed Senator Feinstein's discussion of how she tried to get the White House to take this seriously as "some very clever second guessing crafted to appear as though the administration was ignoring appeals from Sen. Feinstein that she was making based on her feelings (expressed now after the fact) that something terrible could happen."

Keep in mind, this is all she could do -- try to get thw White House to take things more seriously. Senator Feinstein is not in the position to order any sort of thorough and quick analysis of information that was received. The White House is.

This is where it appears the decision making process broke down. If a senator, two months before the attack, is warning that an attack is imminent, why didn't the White House interpret things the same way? And if they did interpret it that way, why didn't the President or someone in the White House demand that all intelligence gathering agencies immediately coordinate to get to the bottom of the warnings they had then? If they had, they likely would have "connected the dots", to use the phrase the media is using.

No, the President did not know an attack was going to occur. And, based on their public statements, no one in the White House could even imagine that an airplane would be used as a missile. THIS is exactly the problem.

Others, with less access to information and far less ability to gather information DID anticipate the attack and DID see the possibility of airplanes being used as missiles. This information was available -- in government documents no less!

It is becoming very clear that the decision making apparatus in the White House, under Bush2, did not work properly to gather the available information and interpret it in such a way as to allow the President to do what he should have and would have done if he had the proper information and the proper interpretation of that information.

Senator Feinstein interpreted it differently. The FBI had information about airplanes as missles. Such plots, of flying planes into landmarks around the world, had been made public. And yet, the White House says it had no information to lead them to think an attack was imminent enough to take specific action or says no one conceived of a plane being used this way. Why not? Others did!

The result of this is all that has befallen this country and the world since 9/11. The result of this failure by the White House is catastrophic -- we are at war, no less, because proper information was not gathered and the President was not given policy options which could have possibly prevented this from happening.

IN its most important test, this White House has shown itself to be incompetent in its most basic responsibility, ensuring the security of the homeland. What they have done since does not erase the fact that what they did then (or failed to do) was incompetent and has had massive, negative, effects.

As I said earlier, you can play semantics all you want to, take apart phrases and show them to not be complete, question other's motivations, point the finger at previous administrations...do and say whatever you want.

It still comes down to the fact that others, with far less information and far less ability to gather information, saw things more accurately than the Bush2 White House. It is a fair and proper area of investigation to ask why this is so and to criticize, if not condemn, the White House for this mistake in judgement.