Discussion in 'Politics' started by ZZZzzzzzzz, Sep 28, 2006.
200,000 people work at the Pentagon. I am sure officers there reschedule flights every day.
The sept 24th Newsweek quote was:
"On Sept. 10, NEWSWEEK has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns."
Supposedly this was mentioned in other issues of Newsweek as well right after 911. Then you have Willy Brown.
further, Ashcroft stopped flying commercial from July onward also due to security concerns as i posted earlier
This isn't a personal comment so please don't misconstrue it as such. There's relatively little I accept as "fact" in news stories unless it's substantiated. I'm only criticizing the media because since it's their vocation they should get it right. But in fact MUCH of what we hear, read, "learn" is bullshit. I would imagine Newsweek also printed "10,000" Dead in New Orleans" or stories of rape and multiple murder in the Super Dome. Or T.O.'s suicide attempt. All wrong. Accounts printed within days of 9/11 may be "fresh" but in the trauma of 9/11 or Katrina these stories sensationalized value is often takes preference to exhaustive fact checking.
Examine the quote itself. No attribution of source. Not even the usual disinformational leak source of a "senior official" or a "person with knowledge". Then there's the cute word "apparently". Well did they or did they not cancel travel plans based on sudden security concerns? Was this unnamed/untitled/unANYTHING source so vague that the caveat "apparently" was needed?
I'm not trying to be snide but I would never argue a THESIS based on "evidence" like this. Like I implied earlier, if Willie Brown "knew", then 30 million other people also knew because that stupid, racist, lying SOB would be last on any list.
Here's Brown's integrity.
On the other hand Ashcroft was CLEARLY concerned about terrorism in the air. No one disputes that the U.S. had hard intelligence indicating a al queda sponsored hijacking or bombing was in the works. I'm sure the Chicago police department has total confidence that there will be a murder on the South Side tonight between midnight and 3am. There's one or more everynight. Does that help them curtail those murders? No.
Since when have vague or nonexistent source attributions or the use of words such as "apparently" ever deterred the moonbats? Any article that criticizes the Bush administration, directly or indirectly, is embraced as having been verified by the Almighty himself and not to be questioned. The latest proof: Clinton's televised meltdown.
Told'ya-guiliani for prez.
Apperently, hap is running low on rhetoric.
I dont know, i didnt see bill's effort there, but if i was in his shoes, id start getting a bit shirty at this stuff too.
For gawds sake, o'reilly goes into an apoplectic fit everytime hes on air, noone seems to concerned with that.
Some freakazoid windbag, who gets paid more than the president, is quite happy to lambast them commie democrats and how shitty they are at terrorism (whoops, i mean counter terrorism, and im using o'reilly as an example here before anyone points out the interveiw wasnt' with him)
but a former prez gets a bit shirty and you never hear the end of it.
As far as meltdowns go, I would certainly describe most of dubya's public speaking efforts in that category.
I dont know, whats the greater concern-that people dont seem to trust a "slick", smooth talking politician,
or, that they do seem to intrinsically trust someone with a big hat, cute folksy jargon, and who's speeches or thought process' seem to have been put through a blender.
pabst, that's fine i can accept that argument on the level of weight to give brief and ambiguously worded news quotes that aren't sourced. may be anecdotal
similarly, i dont think there's any logical merit to discounting Willy Brown's warning based on the fact that you or anyone else thinks he's unpopular. simply not related imo
any subset of these warnings adequately indicate foreknowledge, and i haven't pulled out the foreign intel warnings, at least 10 of them are documented and/or claimed but i think many many more. as you said, ashcroft was highly aware of the al qaeda threat well in advance.
comparing 911 to a nightly shooting in Chicago in terms of being some kind regular occurrence or foregone conclusion... no way
there's a huge diff between believing in a 'nanny-state' and accepting mass casualties in the US when the govt knew something big was coming and made NO efforts to protect us. it's as simple as that
it's amazing how wrong you can be, yet incapable of admitting it. this is a place you come to take out your frustration at not being a trader inbetween coaching HS basketball games and working IT admin for a local union. pfft
you probably live with your parents. get off the welfare kid!
I don't know where you get your information from, but I hope you don't use the same sources when making your trading decisions...
And oh, I moved out when I was 17. How long did you leech off the good graces of the parents who regretted ever spawning you?
Do you still dream of airliners flying 100 feet over your head? If so, allow me to refer you to this thread:
I've always wondered something: Why were there no helicopters with rope ladders picking people off the towers before they fell?
Sure, it's probably difficult to fly in all that smoke... but impossible?
One more thing: Emergency chutes/slides would facilitate far quicker evacuations than emergency stairways. Don't architects think of these things?
sidenote: it was literally impossible to defend against
such an organised crime including numerous
suicide by the attackers before the fact.
the shere number of possibilities to set this up
would have required a level of authority to the
government that the public was unwilling to hand
over before 911.
all this whining about who was more or less
responsible five years after the attack is political
gaming and complete nonsense. complete
nonsense. do not let the media make you become
Separate names with a comma.