Re: Bin Laden

Thumper wrote:

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 20:47:32 GMT, "rg" <jobbahut@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:e1DMg.3001$%i.2958@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"rg" <jobbahut@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:rHlMg.16633$dl.1520@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:BBhMg.521$xg7.412@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Rita" <nitany_98@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:o443g29iqg17j0ka7g751j14rnr9vtqjq1@xxxxxxxxxx

Does anyone share my view that it is a travesty that Bin Laden is
still free?

Imagine if following WWII Hitler had been on the loose? Would the
U.S. and other nations have simply given up and said, "oh well?"

Does anyone other than me think Pakistan is giving him safe haven?

Bin Laden's capture or death would not have totally destroyed Al
Queda. But no longer could the members gloat and use his success
as a recruitment tool.

These thoughts are with me approaching the 5th anniversary of
9/11.

Someday soon I hope they do catch the guy, or he simply dies. But we have had people on America's most wanted who were not caught for an awful long time, so I am not as upset as you are. But on the other hand, since you have been a constant critic of this President, I am not surprised that you would be "upset". I do however wonder how "upset" you would still be, "if" the next President is a democrat, serves his (or her) eight years, and the guy is still on the loose. I wonder how "upset" you would still be, "if" the next President is a democrate, serves his (or her) eight years, and we learn the guy is able to duplicate or even execulte an even bigger attack, then on Sept. 11th?


Jerry, if I may, I would like to jump in here and make a comment or two.

1. Bush had on his desk in August 2001 and presidential advisory that OBL was planning to use airplanes to attack within the US.

So? Clinton believed they guy was a serious threat also.

Clinton was not president in August, 2001.



Bush claimed it was "not actionable material" because it didn't specify time or place.

Well, if you "think" there is a possibility of an attack, and you do not know when it will happen or where it would happen, what should you do?

Since the alert said using airplanes I would alert the FAA and then get the FBI to see if there were any OBL gang members in the US.
That would have certainly been a great start.

Know what Bush did?

He was on vacation....again. I think he was riding his bicycle on his ranch in Texas.




2. We would not have had a 9/11 had people that we charge with our security simply done their jobs.

That is a nice set of words, that is relatively meaningless. "If" as a coutnry we gave them the tools to do their job better, that would also help a lot wouldn't it? Have we done that? From everything I have read, everytime we talk about giving them what they want, we complain about the fact that they should not be given that authority, haven't we?

If you haven't seen the airport surveillance video that shows the highjackers passing through security then you would realize that what I said is accurate.
They only needed to do the jobs as they defined at the time and the highjackers either would not been allowed to board the planes or at the very least would have boarded the planes without box cutters.




The CIA, the FBI all knew the guys were in the US and taking flying lessons.

Don't you also have to know "why" they were taking the flying lessons?

Several of them signed up for flying lessons. The problem was that they were not interested in learning how to land the planes, only take off. One of the instructors thought this was peculiar, especially since they were Arabs, and reported this to the FBI.
The FBI operative reported this to the Washington office but no one paid attention to it.

Do we need more laws to require FBI operatives to read their field reports? No. Just do the job you are supposed to do.


The airport screeners missed the boxcutters.

Well, yes. Even today, with all the heighted level of security checks, we read stories of someone who got past all of our security, so what is your point? Is it even possible to stop everyone?

When the boxcutter shows up on the xray screen but there is noone monitoring that screen because they are drinking coffee then you have a problem with the people not doing their jobs. When the boxcutter causes the alarm to sound on the metal detector, but the passenger is not told to empty his pockets and go through it again, then someone is not doing their jobs. All of this is on the airport surveillance video.



One was even screened twice,

with the xray scanner showing the boxcutter in his pocket, and the metal detector going off, but nobody was awake at the wheel.

And those wonderful new toys also give off false alarms as well. I would think that would have to be taken into consideration, i.e. how many false alarms if any, are given in any day.

And there were procedures in place at the time to allow for this, such as wanding the passenger. They were not followed either.



We don't need extraordinary million dollar homeland security measures to stop criminals. We just need people on the job now, to simply do the job they are charged with and are paid to do.

And what is that?

I have already told you.

If you are simply looking for an arguement then you can have it with yourself.



3. The next president will have to be a super tax president to pay for all of the mis-adventures of the Bush team. I don't care who it is, they are going to get plastered by the public for raising taxes.

Not really. It depends on what we want. If we want everything, then you are correct. If we are willing to reduce the cost of government, that would be another thing, or simply reduce the growth in government spending. For instance, Congress and the President could address the big problem of entitlement spending....that alone would go a long way to solving the problem.

If you really think that is going to happen, then I have a bridge in New Orleans I'd like to sell you.




Never before in the history of this country has a president and congress given a tax cut during wartime.

So? What has happened to government revenue during that time....has it decreased?

Doesn't matter what revenue is doing. If you are earning $50K per year, and are spending a million $$, then you are in trouble.



The chicken will come home to roost....and it will be on the next presidents watch.

It is "always" past on to the next President.

Yep. Clinton passed on to Bush a 400 billion dollar surplus.



Iraq will be a disaster and if Bush extends his empirialistic, religiously motivated ideology further, then we will need your children too, if you have any, to walk the deserts of Iran.


Reading tea leave again?

Is that all you got?


rg




One should remember that the majority of the hijackers were identified
within hours of the events. Why did we wait until AFTER the event to
match their names up on various watch lists? Most of them should have
been caught when going through security.

The 9/11 Commission Report addresses that very issue. You should read the Report. Briefly, there was a lack of coordination of agencies, coupled with communication problems. The establishment of The Department of Homeland Security was supposed to remedy that. It hasn't. Another thing Bush mismanaged.
.