Erollisi Marr - The Nameless

Go Back   Erollisi Marr - The Nameless > NON EQ Stuff (Real life, other games, etc.) > Steam Vent


Reply
 
Add/Share Add/Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-16-2004, 10:59 AM   #1
chukzombi
The Undead Shaman
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Bowels of Hell, A.K.A. New Jersey
Posts: 9,564
Default Clinton warned in 1995 of Attacks on the US

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,117249,00.html
Official: CIA Warned of Attacks on U.S. Soil

Friday, April 16, 2004

WASHINGTON The CIA warned as early as 1995 that Islamic extremists were likely to attack U.S. aviation, Washington landmarks or Wall Street and by 1997 had identified Usama bin Laden (search) as an emerging threat on U.S. soil, a senior intelligence official said Thursday.



The official took the rare step of disclosing information in the closely held National Intelligence Estimate (search) for those two years to counter criticisms in a staff report released Wednesday by the independent commission examining pre-Sept. 11 intelligence failures.

That staff report accused the CIA of failing to recognize Al Qaeda (search) as a formal terrorist organization until 1999 and mostly regarding bin Laden as a financier instead of a terrorist leader during much of the 1990s.

But the U.S. intelligence official, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, said the 1997 National Intelligence Estimate produced by the CIA mentioned bin Laden by name as an emerging terrorist threat on its first page. The National Intelligence Estimate is distributed to the president and senior executive branch and congressional intelligence officials.

The 1997 assessment, which remains classified, "identified bin Laden and his followers and threats they were making and said it might portend attacks inside the United States," the official said.

Philip Zelikow, executive director of the Sept. 11 commission, confirmed the 1997 warning about bin Laden but said it was only two sentences long and lacked any strategic analysis on how to address the threat. "We were well aware of the information and the staff stands by exactly what it says," he said.

The intelligence official also said that while the 1995 intelligence assessment did not mention bin Laden or Al Qaeda by name, it clearly warned that Islamic terrorists were intent on striking specific targets inside the United States like those hit on Sept. 11, 2001.

The report specifically warned that civil aviation, Washington landmarks such as the White House and Capitol and buildings on Wall Street were at the greatest risk of a domestic terror attack by Muslim extremists, the official said.

Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin (search) testified Wednesday that by early 1996 his agency had developed enough concern about bin Laden to create a special unit to focus on his threat. "We were very focused on this issue," McLaughlin told the commission.

The commission's report did credit the CIA after 1997 with collecting vast amounts of intelligence on bin Laden and Al Qaeda, which resulted in thousands of individual reports circulated at the highest levels of government. These carried titles such as "Bin Laden Threatening to Attack U.S. Aircraft" in June 1998 and "Bin Laden's Interest in Biological and Radiological Weapons" in February 2001.

Despite this intelligence, the CIA never produced an authoritative summary of Al Qaeda's involvement in past terrorist attacks, didn't formally recognize Al Qaeda as a group until 1999 and did not fully appreciate bin Laden's role as the leader of a growing extremist movement, the commission said.

"There was no comprehensive estimate of the enemy," the commission report alleged.

But the senior intelligence official said the commission report failed to mention that CIA had produced large numbers of analytical reports on the growth, capabilities, structure and threats posed by Al Qaeda throughout the late 1990s and those detailed reports were distributed to the front lines of terror-fighting agencies.

The CIA most frequently provided these individual and highly detailed analyses to the White House Counterterrorism Security Group charged with formulating anti-terrorism policies and responses, the official said.
Once again, we knew 6 years before 9/11 that OBL and Al Qaeda were planning attacks in the US involving our planes. 5 of those years Clinton could have made an executive decision to stomp out the terror organization but he was more busy getting a blowjob than worrying about national security.
__________________
Chukzombi Astrocreep
Magister (re-united)
chukzombi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2004, 11:06 AM   #2
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
Or....
You mean that Clinton kept America safe for 5 years and it only took less than a year of Mr. Ignoretheproblem Bush to screw things up.
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2004, 11:37 AM   #3
Zelgadis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 2,693
Send a message via ICQ to Zelgadis Send a message via AIM to Zelgadis Send a message via MSN to Zelgadis Send a message via Yahoo to Zelgadis
I dunno, if this is all true then Clinton could have done more to keep America safe - He could have announced it over the news, or something, and that would have strictened the security of air ports and stuff around the country so there would have been a less likely chance of a plane high jacking and crashing and killing. In other word, if it is true and if Clinton had spoken up we might have lost less than we have today.
__________________
Chamzel's Site
PSN Name - Cham-Zel

Serving one day at a time, for four-to-six years at a time.
Zelgadis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2004, 12:07 PM   #4
Tuan00Dorf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,224
Or....
You mean that Clinton kept America safe for 5 years and it only took less than a year of Mr. Ignoretheproblem Bush to screw things up.
Wow... you seriously believe that?

I still do not blame Clinton any more/less than Bush. And let's use little letters to stand for the presidents so maybe you can look at something objectivly instead of through those glasses that only let you see hate for Bush.

X is in office for 8 years. For the last 5 years of his term, Z and company are in the US training/planning/coordinating an attack and X has word of this. X does not stop them after 5 years.

Y comes into office. After 9 months in office, Z attacks.

Your conclusion: X kept America "safe" by allowing Z to plan an attack. The fact that Z was planning and not ready to execute until Y's term is irrelivant. Y is entierly responsible for the Z attack beacuse it happened during Y's term. Y ignored the problem, yet X is totally faultless and ignore nothing.

I can never take you seriously at all after that Bumbleroot, I doubt anyone can. You really need some help. This is why I hate the fact that a lot of people are dedicated to being a republican/democrat, because of people like you. No matter WHAT is said you will always defend your side no matter how fucking stupid it is. And what you propose, is just fucking stupid. It makes no sense; you know it and everyone else knows it.
__________________
Tuan {Cupcakes} the Vicar
Tuan00Dorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2004, 12:25 PM   #5
Trith
The lesser of two weevils
 
Trith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Shreveport, Louisiana
Posts: 3,490
Send a message via MSN to Trith
You mean that Clinton kept America safe for 5 years and it only took less than a year of Mr. Ignoretheproblem Bush to screw things up.
ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!

Holy fuck dude thanks for the laugh..OMG I think I'm gonna need surgery to repair all the damage I just did to my sides..
...
..
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Wow... you seriously believe that
Stick around Tuan..you will be absofuckinglutely amazed at some of the shit he believes...

Last edited by Trith; 04-16-2004 at 12:35 PM.
Trith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2004, 09:24 PM   #6
AresProphet
Priest of Hiroshima
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,932
Send a message via MSN to AresProphet
Despite this intelligence, the CIA never produced an authoritative summary of Al Qaeda's involvement in past terrorist attacks, didn't formally recognize Al Qaeda as a group until 1999 and did not fully appreciate bin Laden's role as the leader of a growing extremist movement, the commission said.

"There was no comprehensive estimate of the enemy," the commission report alleged.
I'm sensing a lie somewhere in here, or an inordinate amount of spin.

CIA in '95: "Look out for extremists."

White House: "Ok, which ones?"

CIA: "We don't know. We'll get back to you in four years and tell you."

Seems like this is how it went, based off of the article.

What seems to be the sentiment among Republicans here is that in 1995, without knowing who was likely to attack, without knowing when or where, we should have gone into paranoia "OmGz it's teh Ayrabs!!1" fight-or-flight mode. And stayed that way for four yers until we finally had an idea of who might be likely to attack.

What would that have prevented? It would have been a Boy Who Cried Wolf scenario, especially since you'd be pretty much saying "Someone, somewhere, might be likely to attack us somewhere, at some unknown time."

This would have been even worse intelligence to go by than Bush supposedly did for the Iraq war. People would have simply laughed and shrugged it off. Nobody, nobody in America would have seriously imagined they could be a target of terrorism until 9/11. It took a wake-up call for us to realize it, but evne then we're still worrying instead of acting. When our own president keeps reassuring us that we're still in danger, you know something is wrong.
__________________
One of the wonders of the world is going down
It's going down I know
It's one of the blunders of the world that no-one cares
No-one cares enough


Attachment 181
AresProphet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2004, 09:46 PM   #7
kanibaal
korpse
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 796
can any libs out there tell me who lowered spending for the CIA?
kanibaal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2004, 02:27 AM   #8
Lallek
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
your americans are funny sometimes

my wife is american and sometimes we have some diffrent meanings about things .. my luck: she thinks the war was wrong.... and ... after they attacked she said it was a bad plan because the US had not the right "way"
to succeed.
btw... maybe if they had enough food and stuff for all the people they had no reason to attack.... AND if they just respect the religion and the rules.

but they just dont do... thats what you get for spitting on someones religious believes.

greetings
Lars
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2004, 10:16 AM   #9
kanibaal
korpse
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 796
What a great argument Lars. We are all wrong and your wife is correct. Wow we are such fools. If only we had taken them food and converted our whole army over to their extreme Islamic beliefs...

We arent there to convert them to christianity BTW and with all that oil they should be able to feed themselves... oh yeah, their old leader horded all the cash and would kill them when he was having a bad day.

It surprises me how clueless some people are.
kanibaal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2004, 11:15 AM   #10
Lallek
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
yep.. maybe iam clueless .. at least i did forecast about this situation before the war startet.

If only we had taken them food and converted our whole army over to their extreme Islamic beliefs
lol ...<no comment>

We arent there to convert them to christianity BTW
nope .. thats true, but you try to convert them to a western civilisation.

and with all that oil they should be able to feed themselves
we better dont talk about oil... and who controlls it right now

oh yeah, their old leader horded all the cash and would kill them when he was having a bad day
at least there was no war .. and they had food, water and electricity.
right now .. over 25% of the iraqi people are cut of from this things.

greets

Lars
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2004, 11:30 AM   #11
kanibaal
korpse
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 796
and what a great forecast it was! "I predict that people will die, food and water supplies will be cut short, and that the exteme muslims will still hate us". wow we have a real life nostradamus here people!

It is war, it sucks and nobody likes it but some stuff needed/needs to be done.

if my neighbor killed his own kids, hated my friends, and was plotting to attack me or help supply someone else who wants to attack me, I would cut it short by striking first. yes, the family that is left might be pissed that he is gone because now they dont have him to feed them crumbs anymore but if I could somehow then get that family to start thinking for themselves and see that they can do alot better on their own, then it wouldnt be a bad thing.

you can see it your way all you want but that is how I see it.
kanibaal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2004, 11:39 AM   #12
Lallek
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
this war didnt make the world safer... it didnt free the iraqi people ... it didnt stabilize the region.

plus ... there were no WMDs .. plus .. there is no connection from the iraq to the AlQuaida

just a worthless war .. with thousends of dead people, americans and iraqi.

and dont come with another example, it just dont fit in this situation.

grsse
Lars
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2004, 11:51 AM   #13
ShardmoonVer.1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 7,457
Hundreds of terrorist filtering into Iraq to battle the infidel = hundreds of less terrorist doing their thing in other places.

Iraq has never been about WMD in my opinion. It has been about removing the one advantage a terrorist has, picking the battlefield. No sensible person doubts the American military's ability to win a head to head fight against an opponent.

If it were only Iraqi's against us I would agree this war serves no purpose, but its not.
__________________
If you don't have something good to say about some one, say it loud.
ShardmoonVer.1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2004, 11:51 AM   #14
Chiteng
Supporter
 
Chiteng's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 10,240
Clinton isnt Prez. Who cares what he was told??
Its old news.
__________________
It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest
Chiteng is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2004, 11:53 AM   #15
Chiteng
Supporter
 
Chiteng's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 10,240
Actually Shardmoon I wonder just how good the Army is against an opponent
determined to fullfill the mission. Not against untrained militia that run away.

Lets say indoctrinated and highly trained soldiers. I am not so sure the Army
would walk away without a scratch.
__________________
It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest
Chiteng is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2004, 11:56 AM   #16
Lallek
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
if you call muslims terrorists ... then i will agree
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2004, 12:38 PM   #17
ShardmoonVer.1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 7,457
Actually, I call terrorist terrorist. In this case they happen to claim Muslin as their faith, but as any educated person can see, its in name only.

Where were they when Saddam was murdering their brothers and sisters?
__________________
If you don't have something good to say about some one, say it loud.
ShardmoonVer.1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2004, 12:53 PM   #18
Lallek
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
you misunderstood... if you call the muslims that are fighting right now terrorists ... than i will agree that hundreds are coming into the iraq.

sorry for my bad english

greetings
Lars
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2004, 01:00 PM   #19
Tuan00Dorf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,224
Clinton isnt Prez. Who cares what he was told??
Its old news.
Um, for those morons who are always looking for someone to blame, it is very relevant. You always say that "Clinton isnt Prez". And that means what? He was president and it was during his time in office that the majority of the attack was being planned in the US. Are you serioulsy going to say that he isn't at all responsible, yet Bush is?

I'm dead serious, how is this not common sense?
__________________
Tuan {Cupcakes} the Vicar
Tuan00Dorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2004, 01:00 PM   #20
Ulujain
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: La La Land
Posts: 1,930
Originally Posted by kanibaal
and what a great forecast it was! "I predict that people will die, food and water supplies will be cut short, and that the exteme muslims will still hate us". wow we have a real life nostradamus here people!

It is war, it sucks and nobody likes it but some stuff needed/needs to be done.
So speaks Serge who is sitting 7000 miles away from where the hard stuff needs to be done. Zolmaz Jr....
__________________
S.I.G.N.A.T.U.R.E.
Ulujain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2004, 01:02 PM   #21
ShardmoonVer.1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 7,457
I call them opportunist and hypocrits. Apparently its ok in their opinion for a Muslim (Saddam) to kill a muslim. They are not defending Iraqis, they are murdering Americans (and other foreign nationals).
__________________
If you don't have something good to say about some one, say it loud.
ShardmoonVer.1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2004, 01:09 PM   #22
chukzombi
The Undead Shaman
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Bowels of Hell, A.K.A. New Jersey
Posts: 9,564
I never said Clinton was all to blame , but to think that allowing a major terrorist organization to prosper and commit attacks on the US and its citizens (WTC in 93, Oklahoma city bombing USS Cole) And not launch a full attack on that organization and not expect to get most of the blame is idiotic. Bush had 8 months and in that 8 months he was getting ready to do what clinton hesitated to do in his 8 years. The problem is that by the time we were doing something about it, it was too late. Clinton deserved impeachment and not just for lying about getting blowjobs from an intern.
__________________
Chukzombi Astrocreep
Magister (re-united)
chukzombi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2004, 01:25 PM   #23
Vulpes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Big Wonderful Wyoming
Posts: 140
Here's a couple of links I found interesting.

Please note that this article, using references obtained by trial affidavits, was written well before the 9/11 attack.

http://www.meib.org/articles/0106_ir1.htm

This one and the next one both show some ties to Iraq, which any logical, objective person, without 20/20 HINDSIGHT, would agree with.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.
This second one is a direct quote from President Bush's speech in Oct. 02. How can you argue with that? He can't 'see' into Iraq's hidden areas. He relied on the best evidence given to him by people who know the most about it. Faulting Dubya for not finding WMD is retarded.

As I once asked before on these boards:
If a known criminal, who has used guns to commit many crimes in the past, is pulled over by the police, then refuses...REFUSES to show that his hands are empty of weapons, would any/all logical, rational people think he had a gun? You can bet your ass that those cops would, which is exactly like the situation that occurred in Iraq.

plus ... there were no WMDs .. plus .. there is no connection from the iraq to the AlQuaida
Did I shed some light on it for ya? If not, sorry, did the best I could. We can all predict the winner of a Sunday night football game Monday morning, but the ones who win are the ones who take the information they have and make the bets before the game.

Vulpes
Vulpes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2004, 01:30 PM   #24
Ulujain
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: La La Land
Posts: 1,930
Originally Posted by ShardmoonVer.1
I call them opportunist and hypocrits. Apparently its ok in their opinion for a Muslim (Saddam) to kill a muslim. They are not defending Iraqis, they are murdering Americans (and other foreign nationals).
No it wasn't OK for Saddam to kill other Muslims. Keeping in mind that Saddam himself probably only paid lip service to the idea of being a Muslim. The Ba'ath Party was a secular socialist party.

And you seem to have this idea that all Muslims are the same. Tell the Northern Irish or the fans of Glasgow Rangers and Celtic that there's only one Christian religion...

Saddam killed his own people. Who were they going to run to and complain to? They didn't exactly have a lot of options on where to turn. A bit like the situation the Jews found themselves in in WW2. There's no Rio Grande the average Iraqi can swim across, there wasn't any Sweden or Switzerland to escape to.. Syria, Iran and Turkey have all persecuted their Kurdish minorities, so where could they turn? Kuwait? Saudi Arabia?

You make it sound so fucking easy Kiebler. An Iraqi family gets hunted down by Saddam and they're going to call Amnesty International and ask to be airlifted out? Yeah right...

As for who is murdering who, keep things in perspective. The Western world may see it as murder, the average Iraqi is going to see it as one less uninvited foreign invader, you know, like the Mexicans that routinely get shot by some Americans for crossing into the US illegally.
__________________
S.I.G.N.A.T.U.R.E.
Ulujain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2004, 01:42 PM   #25
ShardmoonVer.1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 7,457
Actually Ula, its the other guy who was generalizing. Note he equated Muslims to terrorist, not I. My post were pretty darn specific. The foreign nationals coming in to drive out the murderers of their Muslim brothers and sisters.
__________________
If you don't have something good to say about some one, say it loud.
ShardmoonVer.1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:44 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.