What a set of tools...

[alexzed]

What a set of tools...

Well, the Bush government is at it again. Despite proof, and eye-witnesses, Rice denies that she ever was told of attacks on the US, 2 months before 9/11. She says:

Speaking to reporters late Sunday en route to the Middle East, Rice said she had no recollection of what she called "the supposed meeting."

"What I'm quite certain of, is that it was not a meeting in which I was told that there was an impending attack and I refused to respond," she said.

You don't have to be an expert in grammar, logic or even english to know that that sentence makes no sense whatsoever. However, this next statement is even more ludicrous...

The briefing "didn't say within the United States," said one former senior intelligence official. "It said on the United States, which could mean a ship, an embassy or inside the United States."

Regardless - the point is - if I didn't do my job because 'i was fairly sure that the situation in that meeting was not that I needed to not do my job' I'd be fired. Why are these people still there? Why? Why? :banghead:

 

[PatMaGroin]

We had warnings about Pearl Harbor too.

 

[SaroDarksbane]

"In other news, the head of the CIA, Nostradamus, said today that there might be another terrorist attack upcoming, and that it might be located somewhere in the world. If Bush fails to respond to this startling revelation, it could be another major blow to his approval rating and send the media into a frenzy of finger-pointing."

Get over it. Bush could have had a line item that said flat out that terrorists were planning to use planes as guided missiles, but if it was on page 218 of his daily list of possible threats, he was perfectly justified in not springing into action.

 

[llad12]

- the point is - if I didn't do my job because 'i was fairly sure that the situation in that meeting was not that I needed to not do my job' I'd be fired. Why are these people still there? Why? Why?

President Bush is the decider ... :dizzy:

 

[alexzed]

Saro - you're missing the point. i don't care about Bush here - it's the fact that someone is denying that they were told something, that led to a catastrophic disaster, and is absolving herself of responsibility by saying she does not remember. As for your Nostradamus comment, don't forget they were told that on a scale of 1-10, this was a 10. Coming from the head of the CIA. AND it was given to Rumsfeld AND Ashcroft. All I'm saying is that this is grossly neglecting duty. We know bush is an idiot, and incapable of any kind of decision, but these guys are supposed to be the deciders.

[edit: d'oh. llad beat me to the decider comment - but leaving mine in too]

 

[llad12]

oops NVM ...

 

[SaroDarksbane]

they were told that on a scale of 1-10, this was a 10. Coming from the head of the CIA. AND it was given to Rumsfeld AND Ashcroft. All I'm saying is that this is grossly neglecting duty. We know bush is an idiot, and incapable of any kind of decision, but these guys are supposed to be the deciders.

So your complaint is that, when faced with a "ZOMG THEY ARE GOING TO ATTACK BUT WE DONT KNOW WHEN OR WHERE OR HOW", they didn't come up with a plan to stop it?

Just out of curiosity, what would you have done?

 

[alexzed]

So your complaint is that, when faced with a "ZOMG THEY ARE GOING TO ATTACK BUT WE DONT KNOW WHEN OR WHERE OR HOW", they didn't come up with a plan to stop it?

Just out of curiosity, what would you have done?

No! Nononono...

I am saying...that the defence on why they did nothing was that they don't remember. That's so weak, it's laughable. Never mind the specifics...it's revisionist history...we don't remember, so it didn't happen.

I'm not saying they reacted badly (after all, I am one of the people who beleives that this administration actually aided in 9/11) I'm saying that saying 'I don't remember' means you are a tool and should not be in your position.

 

[Module88]

No! Nononono...

I am saying...that the defence on why they did nothing was that they don't remember. That's so weak, it's laughable. Never mind the specifics...it's revisionist history...we don't remember, so it didn't happen.

I'm not saying they reacted badly (after all, I am one of the people who beleives that this administration actually aided in 9/11) I'm saying that saying 'I don't remember' means you are a tool and should not be in your position.

Holding such high offices in our government (congressmen, etc) isn't easy. It's stressful, and to be honest, I don't think they get the thanks they deserve. Try it out for yourself. I wouldn't be surprised if she forgot something. Hell, I forget people's names 10 seconds after I meet them. :Shrug: And, if you consider the intelligence and competence of these officials in the first place, it seems like a believable excuse to me.

 

[SaroDarksbane]

I'm saying that saying 'I don't remember' means you are a tool and should not be in your position.

Ohh, I get it. You're complaining that politicians say things like "I don't recall."

Well, yeah. Welcome to reality. Where have you been?

 

[alexzed]

Ohh, I get it. You're complaining that politicians say things like "I don't recall."

Well, yeah. Welcome to reality. Where have you been?

The difference is - when such an admission leads to such an event, should there not be repercussions?

Module - I don't buy the 'it's a hard job so cut them some slack' argument. However, I do get that there are hundreds of warnings issued daily...part of which is the propaganda machine, part of which are real. I think perhaps an admission of responsibility is in order, that's all.

 

[SaroDarksbane]

The difference is - when such an admission leads to such an event, should there not be repercussions?

What leads to what now? You've already admitted that there wasn't anything they really could have done. Whether or not they say "I don't recall" after the fact changes nothing.

You see, this is the present. Me saying things now doesn't effect or influence what happens in the past. Time is one-way, my friend, until the nice physicists tell me otherwise.

 

[jackthelad]

Ah shame- I thought this was a thread about some fancy new power drills or the next generation of chainsaws. Never mind, carry on.

 

[Module88]

The difference is - when such an admission leads to such an event, should there not be repercussions?

Module - I don't buy the 'it's a hard job so cut them some slack' argument. However, I do get that there are hundreds of warnings issued daily...part of which is the propaganda machine, part of which are real. I think perhaps an admission of responsibility is in order, that's all.

What warnings are you talking about? No one likes to admit responsibility, politics or not. Picking on them doesn't exactly mean anything.

 

[Sokar Rostau]

See, here's the thing.

Bush Administration members were told of the imminent threat of an attack by al Qaeda on the United States, did nothing, and claim they don't recall. You forgive them this because it's a stressful job and you don't know what could have been done about the situation anyway, so it's okay.

Clinton actually attacked al Qaeda, and perceived al Qaeda interests, and yet he gets blamed for not doing enough to prevent al Qaeda from attacking the WTC a second time.

So, if I understand this stance correctly - If you attack al Qaeda you are not doing enough to protect America. But if you ignore warnings of al Qaeda attacking America, and then claim no recollection to justify your lack of action on said warnings, it's okay because there wasn't much that could be done about it in the first place.

 

[Talga Vasternich]

I think perhaps an admission of responsibility is in order, that's all.

The group who planned and executed the hijackings and attacks have already admitted responsibility.

~edit~ Sokar beat me to it.

 

[Module88]

See, here's the thing.

Bush Administration members were told of the imminent threat of an attack by al Qaeda on the United States, did nothing, and claim they don't recall. You forgive them this because it's a stressful job and you don't know what could have been done about the situation anyway, so it's okay.

Clinton actually attacked al Qaeda, and perceived al Qaeda interests, and yet he gets blamed for not doing enough to prevent al Qaeda from attacking the WTC a second time.

So, if I understand this stance correctly - If you attack al Qaeda you are not doing enough to protect America. But if you ignore warnings of al Qaeda attacking America, and then claim no recollection to justify your lack of action on said warnings, it's okay because there wasn't much that could be done about it in the first place.

You're the President of the United States. I'm your top intelligence chief and head of the CIA and NSA.

"Sir, we have credible intelligence that says the United States is under imminent threat of attack."

Your response?

 

[alexzed]

The group who planned and executed the hijackings and attacks have already admitted responsibility.

Huh??? I recall no one took responsibilty. A quick google search on that reveal no group admitting responsibility...

 

[alexzed]

You're the President of the United States. I'm your top intelligence chief and head of the CIA and NSA.

"Sir, we have credible intelligence that says the United States is under imminent threat of attack."

Your response?

“It was an interesting day.â€â€”President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]

 

[Talga Vasternich]

Huh??? I recall no one took responsibilty. A quick google search on that reveal no group admitting responsibility...

So you want C. Rice to take responsibility for the attacks?

....and if you really think that OBL along with Al Qaeda aren't the ones who planned and financed the attacks, please say so. I've only been on here for a year, so you may have to repeat what you have already said.