 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / British History / September 2007The Long Knives Are Out For George Tenet
CIA criticizes former chief over terror readiness By David Stout and Mark Mazzetti Tuesday, August 21, 2007 The Internationl Herald-Tribune WASHINGTON: George Tenet, the former head of the Central Intelligence Agency, recognized the danger posed by Al Qaeda well before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but failed to adequately prepare the CIA to meet the threat, according to an internal agency report that was released in summary form Tuesday. Tenet was sometimes too occupied with tactics instead of strategy, and he was lax in promoting an information-sharing environment within the CIA, the agency's inspector general's office says in the report. An inspector general's team that reviewed the agency's performance found that CIA officers "from the top down" worked hard against Al Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden, before the 9/11 attacks. "They did not always work effectively and cooperatively, however," the team concluded, in what amounted in part to sharp criticism of Tenet's management skills and style. "The team found neither 'a single point of failure' nor a 'silver bullet' that would have enabled the intelligence community to predict or prevent the 9/11 attacks," the inspector general's office said. "The team did find, however, failures to implement and manage important processes, to follow through with operations, and to properly share and analyze critical data." "The agency and its officers did not discharge their responsibilities in a satisfactory manner," according to the report, which was completed in June 2005 but kept classified until now. No CIA employee violated the law, nor did any of their errors amount to misconduct, according to the review team led by Inspector General John Helgerson. Tenet, who resigned from the CIA in 2004 and was succeeded by Porter Goss, has defended his and his agency's actions, and he did so again Tuesday. The CIA's anti-terrorism efforts were embodied in "a robust plan, marked by extraordinary effort and dedication," long before Sept. 11, 2001, he said in a statement. "Without such an effort, we would not have been able to give the president a plan on Sept. 15, 2001, that led to the routing of the Taliban, chasing Al Qaeda from its Afghan sanctuary and combating terrorists across 92 countries," Tenet said. The current head of the CIA, General Michael Hayden, issued a statement making clear that he did not favor publication of the inspector general's report because he thought it would "consume time and attention revisiting ground that is already well plowed." The report was released as part of an arrangement with Congress, which recently endorsed the recommendations of the independent, bipartisan commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks. It concluded that Tenet "did not use all of his authorities" in leading a strategic effort against Osama bin Laden, and that "the management approach" within the CIA's counterterrorism center "had the effect of actively reinforcing the separation of responsibilities" among the agency's divisions. What knives? He's 54 years of age, semi retired, currently on the board of Qinetiq, and his book was a best seller. What they gonna do? Be rude to him...  SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >What knives? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Be rude to him... As this is such a special case, they may even be very rude. SignatureBryn I suppose its expected that some pithy comment be inserted here but I can't be arsed. Remove the gremlins to email me... > CIA criticizes former chief over terror readiness > [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > reinforcing the separation of responsibilities" among the agency's > divisions. Typical retrospective scapegoating. The enture protection of the USA rested in one man? Or were all those other suddenly-now-knowledgable people too scared to mention possibilities to him? What disgusting rubbish. Surreyman >> It concluded that Tenet "did not use all of his authorities" in leading a >> strategic effort against Osama bin Laden, and that "the management [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > What disgusting rubbish. Its not rubbish. The various people and groups who might have been able to prevent 9/11, as later attacks have been prevented, were PREVENTED from doing so because of regulations prohibiting data sharing, put in place during the Clinton administration. Tenet was a holdover, of course. Bush had had neither the time nor inclination to remedy this, indeed, while it was obviously a serious mistake to not have agencies share information, the immediate danger was not obvious because of the lack on information sharing, thus leading to no urgency in correcting the problem. Its thus a circular chain of blundering stupidities which ultimately issued from Bush's predecessors. Today at least we are not acting like the proverbial ostrich. We can't be perfect, but at least we do worry about being imperfect, as Clinton most emphatically and disastrously for 3000 people did not. Doug McDonald On Aug 22, 10:22 am, Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote: > >> It concluded that Tenet "did not use all of his authorities" in leading a > >> strategic effort against Osama bin Laden, and that "the management [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Doug McDonald As near as I can remember NSA has never shared raw data such as this with an actual analytical agency. They are astonished that their sacred decrypts are used to define who, what, why where when for real people, even the President, to read. The compartments go back much further than Clinton and were in place in the 1950s, when the operations recently publicized as "The Family Jewels" were taking place. The original idea was to keep people like Alger Hiss and Kim Philby from wandering from one agency to another picking up a little bit here and a little bit there. We solved that by letting Robert Hanssen perform double duty as an FBI liaison with CIA, starting in 1985, a Reagan year. I forgot that Clinton is responsible for every bad thing that occured from July 4, 1776 to date. Is that what they teach you in junior high school? > On Aug 22, 10:22 am, Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > from July 4, 1776 to date. Is that what they teach you in junior high > school? I think you'll find that the original idea about keeping signals intercept material away from the customers is much older. In fact right after the Room 40 intercept misunderstanding in WWI that led to the Battle of Jutland The customers usually don't understand the significance of what they're reading... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. On Aug 22, 10:54 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > > On Aug 22, 10:22 am, Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach > Time for tea. I was speaking from personal experience. I visited NSA once and made some comment about one of their products in an area I would have considered safe. No, they had sealed and secured rooms for that. So, how do you use it? We don't use it except when there is some juicy piece of gossip like the President likes to read. I see a lot of stuff about the separation being blamed on Janet Reno, as if the importance of hiring loyal "bushies" would not impair the reasoning capabilities of those newly installed "deciders". Several FBI possible leads on the 9/11 people were killed by bureaucrats at a level where the politics runs the show. Jack Linthicum wrote: > I see a lot of stuff about the separation being blamed on Janet Reno, > as if the importance of hiring loyal "bushies" would not impair the > reasoning capabilities of those newly installed "deciders". Several > FBI possible leads on the 9/11 people were killed by bureaucrats at a > level where the politics runs the show. Same thing with Pearl Harbor. The 9/11 Commission's idea won't work, unfortunately. ISTM that the solution would be to overhaul the CIA and truly give it the umbrella responsibility for US overseas intelligence. Unfortunately, an adequate overhaul is probably impossible. Dennis > I see a lot of stuff about the separation being blamed on Janet Reno, > as if the importance of hiring loyal "bushies" would not impair the > reasoning capabilities of those newly installed "deciders". Several > FBI possible leads on the 9/11 people were killed by bureaucrats at a > level where the politics runs the show. As NSA seems to know and the Bush Whitehouse never seems to learn, what the late Adam Osborne once remarked: "...it doesn't matter a rat's a.s what sort of suit you wear and how expensive your haircut is, the only thing that matters is brains." SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. On Aug 22, 2:33 pm, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > > I see a lot of stuff about the separation being blamed on Janet Reno, > > as if the importance of hiring loyal "bushies" would not impair the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach > Time for tea. Unless the fact that you have brains pisses off some clown with an expensive suit and equally expensive haircut and/or hairpiece. > On Aug 22, 2:33 pm, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Unless the fact that you have brains pisses off some clown with an > expensive suit and equally expensive haircut and/or hairpiece. I have a suspicion that NSA have worked out a way to keep the clever people safe from the depredations of the suits. If the British could do it in WWII in the ghastly class ridden snobbish times then, and manage to keep someone as odd as Alan Touring in line and working, then I imagine NSA can manage the trick. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. They do. I've seen it in action -- and it works. DSH ------------------------------------------------------ > I have a suspicion that NSA have worked out a way to keep the clever > people safe from the depredations of the suits. > > If the British could do it in WWII in the ghastly class ridden snobbish > times then, and manage to keep someone as odd as Alan Touring in line and > working, then I imagine NSA can manage the trick. They do. I've seen it in action -- and it works. N.B. It's Alan TURING. DSH ------------------------------------------------------ > I have a suspicion that NSA have worked out a way to keep the clever > people safe from the depredations of the suits. > > If the British could do it in WWII in the ghastly class ridden snobbish > times then, and manage to keep someone as odd as Alan Touring in line and > working, then I imagine NSA can manage the trick. In alt.history.british William Black <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >> On Aug 22, 2:33 pm, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> Unless the fact that you have brains pisses off some clown with an >> expensive suit and equally expensive haircut and/or hairpiece. >I have a suspicion that NSA have worked out a way to keep the clever people >safe from the depredations of the suits. >If the British could do it in WWII in the ghastly class ridden snobbish >times then, and manage to keep someone as odd as Alan Touring in line and >working, then I imagine NSA can manage the trick. I'd not bet the family jewels on it. Signature--- Paul J. Gans Cogent & Coherent. DSH ------------------------------------ >...the late Adam Osborne once remarked: > > "...it doesn't matter a rat's a.s what sort of suit you wear and how > expensive your haircut is, the only thing that matters is brains." Jack Linthicum wrote: > As near as I can remember NSA has never shared raw data such as this > with an actual analytical agency. They are astonished that their [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > operations recently publicized as "The Family Jewels" were taking > place. Yes. I'm reading "Legacy of Ashes," an expose of the CIA. While the author does a lot of name-calling, it's clear that the CIA is poor on analyzing intelligence data. Also, they were supposed to get the big picture for all the US intelligence community, but never could, due to the military, NSA, and Dept. of State's fiefdoms. That continues. Surely someone could collate it all, even if they didn't have access to all the details. > The original idea was to keep people like Alger Hiss and Kim Philby > from wandering from one agency to another picking up a little bit here > and a little bit there. We solved that by letting Robert Hanssen > perform double duty as an FBI liaison with CIA, starting in 1985, a > Reagan year. Yes. Why do we do such a poor job of counter-intelligence? Is it just because Angleton gave it such a poor name? Dennis > > As near as I can remember NSA has never shared raw data such as this > > with an actual analytical agency. They are astonished that their [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Dennis That is probably closer to the truth than a lot of people would like to admit. Not just Angleton screwing up but he made everybody else try to see the twist on the twist on the twist that may have existed or not. The British are better at this than we are despite some of the more publicized goofs they made. On analysis, because I were one, I will contest the flat statement. What screws up CIA intelligence often is the need to satisfy every other agency on NIEs and the apparent inability of some Presidents to handle something as useful as the PDB. "I don't want to know about bad men with guns, show me some broads or tell me about this guy's love life". This brings on the "tee hee, I know all about you" at the face to face conferences. In alt.history.british Jack Linthicum <jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote: >That is probably closer to the truth than a lot of people would like >to admit. Not just Angleton screwing up but he made everybody else try >to see the twist on the twist on the twist that may have existed or >not. >The British are better at this than we are despite some of the more >publicized goofs they made. >On analysis, because I were one, I will contest the flat statement. >What screws up CIA intelligence often is the need to satisfy every >other agency on NIEs and the apparent inability of some Presidents to >handle something as useful as the PDB. "I don't want to know about bad >men with guns, show me some broads or tell me about this guy's love >life". >This brings on the "tee hee, I know all about you" at the face to face >conferences. What makes you think that anybody arguing with you will be swayed by actual experience? They themselves are living examples of what happens when folks are told things they don't want to hear. Signature--- Paul J. Gans Jack Linthicum wrote: >> Yes. Why do we do such a poor job of counter-intelligence? >> Is it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to see the twist on the twist on the twist that may have existed or > not. I've also read that counter-intelligence is a backwater; you don't make friends and advance your career by trying to figure out who is spying and getting people in trouble. > The British are better at this than we are despite some of the more > publicized goofs they made. Are they better than we at intelligence in general? I suspect so, since they've been at it longer. >> Yes. I'm reading "Legacy of Ashes," an expose of the CIA. >> While the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > This brings on the "tee hee, I know all about you" at the face to face > conferences. Straight from the horse's mouth! Great! Does the CIA include the DIA, NSA, etc. intelligence in its summaries? It's true that every agency and the military have their own zealously guarded fiefdoms. Do you see the new office of DNI doing any good? It sure doesn't look that way to me. I'm not very happy with "Legacy of Ashes" so far. The author uses documented evidence, yes, but he seems to focus entirely on negatives! I'm up to 1953, and he seems to think that up to that point the CIA produced almost no useful intelligence analysis. I can see how it might be true, since they were starting almost from scratch, had few agents worth anything, and did not have satellites, U-2/SR-71 photos, advanced Elint, etc. Is he right? Dennis > >> Yes. Why do we do such a poor job of counter-intelligence? > >> Is it [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > Dennis The basic stuff, call it a daily newspaper, comes out for distribution throughout the intelligence community. Each agency has its own version and many of the CIA offices do too. There are several layers of clearances involved. The PDB used to be pure CIA, two guys reading everything everywhere putting together what they felt was the important stuff. Every President had a different style so the PDB's changed as they did. Very few copies produced so that the temptation to display a copy on your desk and show how important you were prevailed. I remember a photo of someone reading the PDB appeared in a newspaper or magazine. Big deal to the analysts, no big thing for the VIPs. I would contest your source and his limited view. There are still areas which were created in the Eisenhower years that are not for public discussion. I mean, what would be your reaction seeing a major head of state with a bag over his head walking down the halls? > I would contest your source and his limited view. There are still > areas which were created in the Eisenhower years that are not for > public discussion. I mean, what would be your reaction seeing a major > head of state with a bag over his head walking down the halls? The point that a lot of people forget is that intelligence agencies do not exist in a vacuum. They have people who can best be described as 'customers'. These customers 'pay' for the information they receive. If the intelligence agencies didn't actually produce something beyond what you can read in the columns of your daily newspaper then nobody would pay them. For the about fifty years before World War I the British had no crypyanalytical capacity because they considered they didn't need any, and shut the agency that did it. They had to start from scratch in 1914 with a naval educator who solved ciphers for fun. Between WWI and WWII the GCCS (the British code breaking department) employed all of 32 people, including clerical support, and was spectacularly successful, certainly reading many diplomatic messages sent by the USSR, until Stanley Baldwin blew them wide open anyway... People won't pay for something that doesn't do anything for them. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. What are your details on this Room 40, Jellicoe and Battle of Jutland snafu? >until Stanley Baldwin blew them wide open anyway... Yes, go ahead. P.S. Noble and/or Royal Ancestors for Beatty and Jellicoe? DSH ------------------------------------------------ >> I would contest your source and his limited view. There are still >> areas which were created in the Eisenhower years that are not for [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > People won't pay for something that doesn't do anything for them. > What are your details on this Room 40, Jellicoe and Battle of Jutland > snafu? The story goes that the intercept was taken transfering the German 'flag' to a shore station. The intelligence professionals, all civilians, knew this meant that the whole German fleet was about to put to sea on a sortie they already had intelligence on. However a nameless Commander (funny how that rank is so assossiated with cock-ups in this field) got hold of the original signal, read it and decided that the signal was a real movement of the German fleet command ashore and informed his superiours that only the German battle cruisers would put to sea, as at the Battle of Dogger Bank, and so the Royal Navy could ambush them with relative imopunity. Jutland promptly followed... After that NO raw signals intelligence was allowed to be given to anyone outside the intelligence services. >>until Stanley Baldwin blew them wide open anyway... > > Yes, go ahead. During the General Strike baldwin read in the House of Commons telegrams between the Soviet government and its UK embassy telling them to support the strike. The intelligence promptly dried up. All this information is freely available in the published literature. Why not read it? Anyway, I thought you used to be in that business. This stuff must be very basic to someone in that job. > P.S. Noble and/or Royal Ancestors for Beatty and Jellicoe? Nobody cares, nobody ever cared, anyone who cares now has a problem and should seek professional help. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. On Aug 23, 5:48 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > > What are your details on this Room 40, Jellicoe and Battle of Jutland > > snafu? [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach > Time for tea. Hines was an "administrator" and apparently, from the stuff on line from Misawa, a very bad one. He was stupid enough to argue publicly with his superior and then again in a different context. That superior became the head of all Security Group operations in the Pacific. Result: housing officer and retirement. > On Aug 23, 5:48 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > became the head of all Security Group operations in the Pacific. > Result: housing officer and retirement. So just like his prototype at Room 40 then... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >The story goes that the intercept was taken transfering the German 'flag' to >a shore station. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Jutland promptly followed... Andrew Gordon's "Rules of the Game" goes into some detail. (Need to get him to sign my copy, next time I run into him at Shrivenham :) ) Captain Thomas Jackson, Director of Operations, despised the cryptographers in Room 40. On one of his very rare visits, he blustered in and demanded to know the location of callsign DK, was told "Wilhelmshaven" and left to pass that information on without further investigating. DK was Scheer's *harbour* callsign. It was *always* in Wilhelmshaven. On that basis, though, Jackson reported to Rear-Admiral Oliver that the High Seas Fleet was still tied up in the Jade, and this was signalled to Jellicoe and Beatty, who were out intending to ambush Hipper's battlecruisers. Gordon analyses the consequences, which were less immediately awful than sometimes claimed: Jellicoe might have made contact with the High Seas Fleet sixteen minutes earlier had he increased speed rather than continuing as he was. (More serious was the discount in credibility this imposed on subsequent signals from the Admiralty during the battle). Later, neither Jackson nor Oliver were present during the night action: a junior watch officer, receiving the stream of decrypts from Room 40 and having no idea what they were, carefully filed them away out of sight... >After that NO raw signals intelligence was allowed to be given to anyone >outside the intelligence services. And Room 40 was moved from Operations to Intelligence. Sadly, it seems Jackson was not cashiered for his incompetence. ("Ridiculous", "blustering", "insufferable" and "buffoon" are among the terms the usually measured and moderate Gordon uses to describe Jackson) SignatureThe nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools. -Thucydides Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)co<dot>uk > In message <DJczi.20255$mo.13...@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>, William Black > <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> writes [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)co<dot>uk I notice a similarity between Captain Jackson and another. >> In message <DJczi.20255$mo.13...@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>, William Black >> <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> writes [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > I notice a similarity between Captain Jackson and another. So did I... That's why I thought it was a Commander... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. "William Black" wrote: > People won't pay for something that doesn't do anything for them. I'm not so sure. They will if there isn't anything else. The Germans sure took all the bullshit we fed them during WWII. Dennis >> People won't pay for something that doesn't do anything for them. > > I'm not so sure. They will if there isn't anything else. The > Germans sure took all the bullshit we fed them during WWII. The Germans thought it was real and value for money. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >>> People won't pay for something that doesn't do anything for them. >> >> I'm not so sure. They will if there isn't anything else. The >> Germans sure took all the bullshit we fed them during WWII. > > The Germans thought it was real and value for money. True, we made it look good enough for them to take it seriously. We also adjusted it all along, since we knew what they thought from ULTRA. However, sometimes people will take something very dubious rather than admit that they don't know anything. A lot of that went on during the Cold War, I think. Dennis > >>> People won't pay for something that doesn't do anything for them. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Dennis IIRC the Double X picked up the German agent from the very first, making every contact under the British control. The Germans, unlike the British and their agents in Europe, had nothing to compare the information with. They met in Room 20, XX roman. "The Double Cross System or 'XX' System, was a wartime expedient of the British military intelligence arm, MI5, which involved turning captured Nazi agents and using them to broadcast mainly erroneous information to the Nazi high command. Often the turned agents were given factual collateral with which to build up their reputations. One of the major players in the Double Cross System was /Garbo, who built up a highly fictitious network of agents, and became respected by the Abwehr to the extent that they stopped landing agents in Britain after 1942, and became wholly dependant on the spurious information which was fed to them by / Garbo's network." wiki >> The Germans thought it was real and value for money. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >than admit that they don't know anything. A lot of that went on during the >Cold War, I think. Check out some of the speculation - published in trade press and reputable sources - about the miraculous gizzits supposed to be housed in that rudder pod on Victor-III and later Soviet submarines. One analysis in a "Jane's Naval Review" claimed with a straight face that it was a magnetohydrodynamic pulsejet (this was 1986 or so, probably inspired John McTiernan when he adapted "The Hunt for Red October" to the big screen) that would allow said submarines to dart about silently and undetectably at fifty knots and three thousand feet of depth, immune to any puny Western weapon... But then, sometimes "Soviet Military Power" could really have done with some calm deep breathing and a quiet lie down in a dark room... and I shudder to think what the USSR equivalents might have been claiming. SignatureThe nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools. -Thucydides Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)co<dot>uk > In message <Xns9995B45046387tsalagiNOSPAMasus...@130.133.1.4>, Dennis > <tsalagiNOS...@asus.net> writes [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)co<dot>uk Uh oh time to dust off the foredeck of the USS Missouri On Aug 23, 7:32 pm, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > In message <Xns9995B45046387tsalagiNOSPAMasus...@130.133.1.4>, Dennis > > <tsalagiNOS...@asus.net> writes [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Uh oh time to dust off the foredeck of the USS Missouri Error, wrong thread. "Paul J. Adam" wrote: > Check out some of the speculation - published in trade press and > reputable sources - about the miraculous gizzits supposed to be housed [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > silently and undetectably at fifty knots and three thousand feet of > depth, immune to any puny Western weapon... Yup, I remember that. I remember seeing that in a newsletter called something like Undersea Tech that it was MHD that could do about 6 knots for stalking. I do think I saw reports that frozen water was sometimes seen on said pod, as on the Alfas, possibly suggesting superconducting machinery - or is that just a frozen climate? Is any of that correct? > But then, sometimes "Soviet Military Power" could really have done > with some calm deep breathing and a quiet lie down in a dark room... There were at least a few surprising results from remote viewing, like the Soviet Typhoon class SSBN AIRC. > and I shudder to think what the USSR equivalents might have been > claiming. They were into psychic war too AIRC. Wonder what and how well they did? Yes, it would be very interesting to hear what their intelligence estimates said. I'm sure they told their leaders what they wanted to hear, too, especially since the consequences of disagreement were considerably more severe. They really thought that we were going to attack them, so they were at least that far off base. Dennis Hmmmmmm... Word has it that frozen water is usually referred to as ICE... But that may just be a rumor. DSH > I do think I saw reports that frozen water was sometimes seen on > said pod, as on the Alfas, possibly suggesting superconducting machinery > - or is that just a frozen climate? Is any of that correct? > Hmmmmmm... > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > said pod, as on the Alfas, possibly suggesting superconducting machinery > > - or is that just a frozen climate? Is any of that correct? What do you call "frozen salt water"? Jack Linthicum wrote: >> Hmmmmmm... >> >> Word has it that frozen water is usually referred to as ICE... >> >> But that may just be a rumor. >> "Dennis" wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What do you call "frozen salt water"? Sea ice, which freezes at around -1.8 deg C, lower than plain ice. A cold machine would also freeze atmospheric water vapor, so that would be plain ice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_ice Dennis In alt.history.british Jack Linthicum <jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote: >What do you call "frozen salt water"? That's actually an interesting question... The answer can be found by placing salt water in an ice cube tray and watching what happens. Signature--- Paul J. Gans > What do you call "frozen salt water"? Sea ice. Deirdre In alt.history.british Deirdre Sholto Douglas <finch.enteract@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> What do you call "frozen salt water"? >Sea ice. Sea ice differs in its salt content by age. And the salt is not distributed at all evenly throughout. Signature--- Paul J. Gans > In alt.history.british Deirdre Sholto Douglas <finch.enteract@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Sea ice differs in its salt content by age. And the salt is > not distributed at all evenly throughout. It's still frozen salt water...the lack of homogeneity in a solid phase will not prevent it from being "salt water" in a liquid one. Deirdre Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote: >> In alt.history.british Deirdre Sholto Douglas >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > in a solid phase will not prevent it from being "salt > water" in a liquid one. Nonetheless, what's the answer to the original question: do Russian submarines contain superconducting machinery? I strongly suspect the answer is 'no'. Dennis In alt.history.british Deirdre Sholto Douglas <finch.enteract@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> In alt.history.british Deirdre Sholto Douglas <finch.enteract@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> Sea ice differs in its salt content by age. And the salt is >> not distributed at all evenly throughout. >It's still frozen salt water...the lack of homogeneity >in a solid phase will not prevent it from being "salt >water" in a liquid one. The basic point (nobody seems to want to actually try it) is that there is a phase separation on freezing. What solidifes first is essentially pure water. Eventually the remaining water reaches the saturation point and what then freezes out is essentially pure water with an admixture of salt It looks cloudy because of the solid salt present. This is what happens if you freeze the salt water slowly. If you freeze it rapidly you do get "frozen salt water". But it isn't in equilibrium and will slowly revert. Ice water in the arctic, the older it is, the purer the ice since the salt so to speak "works its way" to the surface. Thus there is really no such thing as frozen salt water. What you call it when it is melted has nothing to do with it. Signature--- Paul J. Gans > In alt.history.british Deirdre Sholto Douglas <finch.enteract@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > you freeze it rapidly you do get "frozen salt water". But it > isn't in equilibrium and will slowly revert. > Thus there is really no such thing as frozen salt water. What > you call it when it is melted has nothing to do with it. "If you freeze it rapidly you do get "frozen salt water"." and "no such thing as frozen salt water"...do you nor- mally contradict yourself in the span of two paragraphs? The question, Paul, wasn't "What do you call a frozen ionically dissociated aqueous solution of sodium chloride?" it was "What do you call frozen salt water?" Most people, particularly those who don't live in a reagent grade world, are referring to marine environments when they say "salt water" and are making a distinction between said environment and a lentic/lotic freshwater one hence the linguistic distinction between "sea ice" and "ice". The fact that salt water does not freeze homogenously (when frozen in a quiescent manner like an ice cube tray) is irrelevant, the average Joe on the street doesn't give a damn about heterogeneity, -21.1 C eutectic points, brine density or porosity. They also don't care about the salt being trapped in concentrated form in the air pockets or migrating to the outer edge of the structure they want to know what to _call_ it because they know that if they melt it, they can't drink it. Frozen salt/oceanic water is called "sea ice", and given that this is being crossed out to a naval group, I expect someone, _somewhere_ has served on an ice breaker maybe you should ask them if homogeneity makes a dif- ference in their terminology. For what it's worth, frozen salt water apparently has commercial applications as well...at least commercial if you own a skating rink. Someone even managed to get a patent on the method (US Patent 4467619). Deirdre In alt.history.british Deirdre Sholto Douglas <finch.enteract@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> In alt.history.british Deirdre Sholto Douglas <finch.enteract@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> you freeze it rapidly you do get "frozen salt water". But it >> isn't in equilibrium and will slowly revert. >> Thus there is really no such thing as frozen salt water. What >> you call it when it is melted has nothing to do with it. >"If you freeze it rapidly you do get "frozen salt water"." >and "no such thing as frozen salt water"...do you nor- >mally contradict yourself in the span of two paragraphs? Please don't show your ignorance. I happen to know that you've had an elementary scientific education. Rapid freezing produces a metastable state. It isn't a true anything. >The question, Paul, wasn't "What do you call a frozen >ionically dissociated aqueous solution of sodium chloride?" >it was "What do you call frozen salt water?" There is no such thing. So you can call it "Barzooki" for all it matters. >Most people, particularly those who don't live in a reagent >grade world, are referring to marine environments when >they say "salt water" and are making a distinction between >said environment and a lentic/lotic freshwater one hence >the linguistic distinction between "sea ice" and "ice". Aha, you want to use the word "lentic" but you don't want to understand "equilibrium"... Very interesting... >The fact that salt water does not freeze homogenously >(when frozen in a quiescent manner like an ice cube tray) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >want to know what to _call_ it because they know that >if they melt it, they can't drink it. Actually, they can. If it is old ice and they wash off the surface (since it has been sitting in salt water) they can drink it just fine. It is new ice that can't be consumed. >Frozen salt/oceanic water is called "sea ice", and given >that this is being crossed out to a naval group, I expect >someone, _somewhere_ has served on an ice breaker >maybe you should ask them if homogeneity makes a dif- >ference in their terminology. No. The term "sea ice" refers to ice on the sea, not to frozen salt water. It differentiates it from "land ice" or "glacier". >For what it's worth, frozen salt water apparently has >commercial applications as well...at least commercial if >you own a skating rink. Someone even managed to get >a patent on the method (US Patent 4467619). I'm glad to hear it. You really don't like being crossed, do you? Signature--- Paul J. Gans Hilarious! DSH > In alt.history.british Deirdre Sholto Douglas > <finch.enteract@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>The question, Paul, wasn't "What do you call a frozen >>ionically dissociated aqueous solution of sodium chloride?" >>it was "What do you call frozen salt water?" > > There is no such thing. So you can call it "Barzooki" > for all it matters. > In alt.history.british Deirdre Sholto Douglas <finch.enteract@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Please don't show your ignorance. I happen to know that > you've had an elementary scientific education. Rapid freezing > produces a metastable state. It isn't a true anything. You happen to know very little about me, Paul, so I suggest you not pretend otherwise about _any_ aspect my life. I'm not one of your slack-jawed, students sucking up for a grade and academics, by and large, don't impress me (particularly not those who've only published three times in sixteen years). A frighteningly large percentage haven't done any original thinking since their dissertation and are little more than intellectually moribund parrots teaching the same basic principles semes- ter after semester...you appear to be one of them. > >Most people, particularly those who don't live in a reagent > >grade world, are referring to marine environments when [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Aha, you want to use the word "lentic" but you don't > want to understand "equilibrium"... Very interesting... The equilibrium state of a compound has _nothing_ to do with its common name. > >The fact that salt water does not freeze homogenously > >(when frozen in a quiescent manner like an ice cube tray) [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > It is new ice that can't be consumed. I thought salt water didn't freeze, so how can you even call it "ice", new or old? And assuming it _does_ freeze, (as the "new ice" statement would imply) if it's, as you allege, fresh water, why isn't it potable when melted? Could the reason be...wait for it...salt content in the ice? Hm. However did that salt get there? Obviously it couldn't have been in the water because "salt water doesn't freeze", so maybe it just magic(k)ally appeared out of the air and implanted itself in the ice. Nice to see you've not lost your "a miracle occurs here" edge from organic chem. > >Frozen salt/oceanic water is called "sea ice", and given > >that this is being crossed out to a naval group, I expect [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > frozen salt water. It differentiates it from "land ice" > or "glacier". It also has a salt content. I tell you what, Mr. Professor, why don't you run out and nick a piece of sea ice, put it in a beaker and let it melt. Do the same to a piece from the ice-maker (I'll even give you a sodium fluoride handicap if it's tap water and not deionised) and then, when both are liquid, stick a conductivity meter in there and check ionic strength...I guarantee the two won't be the same. Failing that, take the cheap way out (in case your Fine Academic Institution's budget doesn't run to conductivity meters) and measure the density of the ice itself...it won't be the same either, but obviously you won't believe it until you do the measurements, so have at it. > You really don't like being crossed, do you? I don't mind being crossed, I just don't much like your tendency to dance around the realities of a topic. Deirdre >>>> People won't pay for something that doesn't do anything for them. >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the > Cold War, I think. I think some probably did. But on the other hand both sides had lots for people to find out about that looked good, but wasn't. And we're back at 'The Caspian Sea Monster'... And that US Army project for exploiting 'remote viewing'. Both projects cost serious money, both are the sort of thing the politicians on both sides would authorise the spending of serious money to find out about, both went nowhere, both probably produced intense speculation from the other side. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. On Aug 24, 6:31 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > >>>> People won't pay for something that doesn't do anything for them. > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach > Time for tea. A lot of time and money spent on trying to explain what purpose the CSM would serve and how far along it was in achieving that purpose. Some very big people worried an awful lot about carrying 400 troops into a trouble spot at 300 mph. This was during the 67 War era and other areas where Soviet meddling would have produced a probably excessive reaction. Imagine the Turks at the straits looking up and seeing five CSMs cruising above the water, thereby not part of the treaty. > On Aug 24, 6:31 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > seeing five CSMs cruising above the water, thereby not part of the > treaty. Or seeing a couple of dozen cruising the Baltic in formation... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. Jack Linthicum wrote: > The basic stuff, call it a daily newspaper, comes out for distribution > throughout the intelligence community. Each agency has its own version > and many of the CIA offices do too. There are several layers of > clearances involved. What I meant was: sure everyone has their own intelligence department, but does the CIA, or anyone, take the product or the data at some level from everyone and collate it into some overall report - ever? Say take data at some level from the DIA, the NSA, and the CIA's own data and produce some overall assessment, even if only occasionally? > I would contest your source and his limited view. There are still > areas which were created in the Eisenhower years that are not for > public discussion. I mean, what would be your reaction seeing a major > head of state with a bag over his head walking down the halls? That's what I thought. The author is Tim Weiner, and so far he's presented them as total screwups on intelligence and covert action both! I don't think they're *that* bad! Here's the Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Ashes-History-Tim- Weiner/dp/038551445X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-4841813-7870310?ie=UTF8 &s=books&qid=1187828332&sr=8-1 Dennis > > The basic stuff, call it a daily newspaper, comes out for distribution > > throughout the intelligence community. Each agency has its own version [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Dennis The problem with people who aren't "inside" the intelligence business is they use the fiction as a basis for what they expect. Currently one of the figures on TV is Tyler Drumheller, former station chief in Europe. You have to ask yourself if he looks like James Bond or any other figure in spy fiction. That, of course, is the idea. You can't recruit people to betray their country if you look like a fashion model and talk like an Ivy League snob. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749.shtml >> > The basic stuff, call it a daily newspaper, comes out for distribution >> > throughout the intelligence community. Each agency has its own version [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > model and talk like an Ivy League snob. > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749.shtml For contrast, you should watch "The Sandbaggers." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbaggers SignatureAndrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) On Aug 23, 7:22 am, "Andrew Chaplin" <ab.chap...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote: > >> > The basic stuff, call it a daily newspaper, comes out for distribution > >> > throughout the intelligence community. Each agency has its own version [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO > (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) I have the VHS set, given to me by my daughter back when VHS was it. The Sandbaggers are what one guy said about the CIA clandestine ops people back during the Church Commission hearings, "why don't we just pack up a few people and find a row house in Pittsburgh and start over?" Even the Sandbaggers had a touch of television, the cast was too small, the relationships too close and the results too cut and dried. For a real look at the "James Bond" end of things read CIA Spy Master by Ashley, about George Kisevalter the guy who debriefed all the big time spies. And later sold real estate. > Even the Sandbaggers had a touch of television, the cast was too > small, the relationships too close and the results too cut and dried. And everyone was far too well dressed and neat and tidy. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. > Say take data at some level from the DIA, the NSA, and the CIA's own data > and produce some overall assessment, even if only occasionally? Yes. Such documents are National Intelligence Estimates. They are written by an organization whose name has changed over the years. I believe they are currently called the National Intelligence Council. I am more familiar with their work in the 1960's, when they were called the Office of National Estimates. There are a wide variety of them. Some of the are produced annually. Others are produced more often than that (e.g. the one just released today on the future of Iraq is an update to one declassified six months ago). Then there are so called SNIE's, Special National Intelligence Estimates, which are produced in response to unusual events, generally in a time-critical manner. The standard procedure for this is that the so called "consensus view" is the main text of the report. If any agency disagrees with that consensus, they can have footnotes in the document to express their disagreement. Some of these footnotes are quite lengthy, expressing their reasoning and arguing their case. (I've cited one by the head of the USAF intelligence agency that was a full page.) In the 1960's the ONE worked for the DCI- remember that he was dual-hatted as head of the CIA and head of the overall intelligence community. This meant that the CIA's view on things quite often became the consensus view. I would assume that the NIC currently works for the DNI, though I'm not sure. I have no idea how that has affected the politics of the consensus view, though at a guess the DNI's opinion determines it. Chris Manteuffel Christopher Manteuffel wrote: >> Say take data at some level from the DIA, the NSA, and the CIA's own >> data and produce some overall assessment, even if only occasionally? > > Yes. Such documents are National Intelligence Estimates. They are > written by an organization whose name has changed over the years. I > believe they are currently called the National Intelligence Council. So, this organization fills the role the CIA should, or was originally intended to. Dennis No. The CIA has a much larger role -- and was so intended to have from 1947, at its founding. DSH >>> Say take data at some level from the DIA, the NSA, and the CIA's own >>> data and produce some overall assessment, even if only occasionally? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Dennis >>> It concluded that Tenet "did not use all of his authorities" in >>> leading a [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Doug McDonald The World Trade Towers were standing on Jan 21. 2001. You can whine and point all the fingers that you want but it won't change the fact. George W. Bush and his staff were warned and chose to ignore the warning. Signature"For the stronger we our houses do build, The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall > The World Trade Towers were standing on Jan 21. 2001. You can whine and > point all the fingers that you want but it won't change the fact. George > W. Bush and his staff were warned and chose to ignore the warning. The word you have wrong is "chose". In the early days of the Bush administration the FBI and the CIA were CONSTRAINED by Clinton's directives to do the wrong thing and not communicate. They had no legal choice. True, Bush COULD have acted faster than he did to correct the situation ... but the situation itself led to a false complacency. This was a leftover from Clinton. Remember that Tenet was a Clinton holdover, as were many other mid-level functionaries. It would take have taken time to fix the problems, even had they started out on the front burner on inauguration day. It takes time to get rid of all the baggage from the old regime. Note that the Bush administration has been very good at correcting these problems, post 9/11, despite attacks from people like you trying to stop them from doing the right thing. The key points are that we must discriminate on the basis of likelihood of being a terrorist, spy on possible terrorists, monitor their communications, etc. This is being done. And it is critical, absolutely critical, not to impose artificial barriers on who they spy on. Doug McDonald Clinton Clinton Clinton. No matter how many times you whine about Clinton the fact remains; Bush was warned, Rice was warned. They ignored the warnings, they ignored the August PDB. They demoted Clark despite the warnings. They stopped the Predator drone flights in Afghanistan. Bush was responsible for the failure to stop the Sept. 11 2001 attacks, not President Clinton. It's time for Bush to take responsibility for his actions, for a change. > Doug McDonald Signature"For the stronger we our houses do build, The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall > Clinton Clinton Clinton. No matter how many times you whine about > Clinton the fact remains; Bush was warned, Rice was warned. No matter how many times you state this, the FACT is that the warning, weak though it was, came too late for action. All this was a CLINTON LEGACY. There is nothing you can do about that: Clinton did not take security as important. Yes, it happened on Bush's watch ... but the PREPARATION and most of the intelligence came during Clinton's AND HE DID NOTHING. Also, one points out, CLINTON HAD SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES TO KILL bin LADEN AND DID NOT ACT. This despite that it was clear that al Qaeda was involved with previous murderous attempts around the world. The BOTTOM LINE is that Bush has been doing as good a job as can be done with people like you and many Democrats attacking EVERYTHING he does in the war on terror, no matter WHAT IT IS. Note that the Democrats are currently busily scurrying to figure out new ways of attacking him now that it is apparent that the "surge" is working, and that, ABSENT HELP FROM PEOPLE LIKE YOU, the terrorists WILL eventually lose, just as the IRA eventually lost. It probably will take as long. Doug McDonald >> Clinton Clinton Clinton. No matter how many times you whine about >> Clinton the fact remains; Bush was warned, Rice was warned. > > No matter how many times you state this, the FACT is that > the warning, weak though it was, came too late for > action. All this was a CLINTON LEGACY. Nobody believes these talking points anymore except for the small percentage of loyalists who would still support Bush even if he were to molest children on television. It's quite pathetic really. The Towers were standing on Jan. 21 2001. President protected the US, Bush did not. Signature"For the stronger we our houses do build, The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall > > Clinton Clinton Clinton. No matter how many times you whine about > > Clinton the fact remains; Bush was warned, Rice was warned. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Doug McDonald bush was warned when he came into office, he didn't think it was worthy of pursuit clinton didn't have "SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES TO KILL bin LADEN " there was a chance to arrest him but the republican congress fascinated by a bl.wj.b refused to support clinton in any foreign policies. bush had a tame congress for 6 years, he got everything he asked for. he still does nothing anyone has said has had any effect on him. does poor georgie boy need a pat on the head along with his having gotten his way on everything? The Clinton Administrations -- led by Bill and Hill, plus Gore -- saw all sorts of OPPORTUNITIES -- but neglected THREATS. After all, they were basking in the glow of a successful WIN for the Free World in The Cold War -- so, as in the 1920's -- America had a Long Weekend Party. Once Again they were working in a completely different CLIMATE OF OPINION -- Pre 9/11. The Clinton Agenda was also almost completely DOMESTIC -- NOT oriented towards NATIONAL SECURITY. The Clintons are Accomplished Policy-Wonks on DOMESTIC AFFAIRS. Hillary, because she is damned smart, has been tooling herself up on National Security Issues ---- trying to build experience and credibility during her Presidential run -- in order to be seen as a qualified Commander-in-Chief. That's why she has taken on Barack Obama -- and pointed out he is "naïve and irresponsible" on said issues -- including talking about nuclear weapons. DSH -------------------------------------- >> Clinton Clinton Clinton. No matter how many times you whine about Clinton >> the fact remains; Bush was warned, Rice was warned. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Doug McDonald On Aug 22, 12:37 pm, Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote: > > Clinton Clinton Clinton. No matter how many times you whine about > > Clinton the fact remains; Bush was warned, Rice was warned. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Doug McDonald When did Republicans lose the ability to think independently and just blindly follow their chosen leader no matter how precarious and incorrect the path? With the constant lies, cases of corruption, blatant disregard for the American traditions, etc. you would think that more of them would wise up and realize that they have been following a fool over the precipice. Forget Clinton - you're fixated on him. At least no one died from his corruption and it didn't get the US into a unjust war. No one has done more to increase recruitment into Al Quade and the Jihad than Bush. He is not the answer to security problems; he IS the security problem. > The key points are that we must discriminate on the basis > of likelihood of being a terrorist, spy on possible [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Doug McDonald Yep... Naïve people simply don't understand how difficult it is to change the course of the American Federal Government. Change -- in the absence of a triggering catastrophic event such as the Pearl Harbor or 9/11 attacks or Watergate -- proceeds at a funereal pace -- and no President can change that fundamental fact of Washington. The Founding Fathers WANTED the American Government to be checked and balanced to equilibrium on many issues -- NOT constantly innovative and simulative. It's written by Mr. Madison into the Constitution. Further, they never envisioned the United States as Top Nation -- the only Great Power left in a Multi-Cultural World with over 200 so-called Sovereign Nations. Nor can they be expected to have foreseen it. DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas >> The World Trade Towers were standing on Jan 21. 2001. You can whine and >> point all the fingers that you want but it won't change the fact. George [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Doug McDonald >> The key points are that we must discriminate on the basis >> of likelihood of being a terrorist, spy on possible [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > balanced to equilibrium on many issues -- NOT constantly innovative and > simulative. The Bush Administration seemed perfectly capable of changing removing and/or bypassing those Constitutional checks and balances that existed for over 200 years to suit their purposes. I don't see why you don't expect that a lifting a communication rule couldn't have been as easy, unless you agree that one shouldn't do any work on vacation. Glenn D. On Aug 22, 2:36 pm, Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote: > > The World Trade Towers were standing on Jan 21. 2001. You can whine and > > point all the fingers that you want but it won't change the fact. George [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Doug McDonald So because Bush wanted to undo everything that Clinton did it was necessary to ignore any warnings that appeared during that nine-month period? We have seen in the subsequent 6 years that Bush could get elected but he had no clue as to governing. Better to load up important cabinet departments with loyal bushies with no concept of who they were working for, after all they took an oath to Bush not the Constitution. Several good strong warnings told the management things were going to happen, an unnamed CIA briefer flew to Bush's Texas ranch during the scary summer of 2001, amid a flurry of reports of a pending al-Qaeda attack, called the president's attention personally to the now-famous Aug. 6, 2001, memo titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US." Bush reportedly heard the briefer out and replied: "All right. You've covered your a.s, now." So he knew about al-Qaeda. He knew that al-Qaeda was determined to attack. The CIA even flew to dubya's vacation ranch in Crawford, Texas to personally call his attention to the PDB. And yet he did nothing about it. A not-so-gentle reminder of the great and glorious leader. > So he knew about al-Qaeda. He knew that al-Qaeda was determined to > attack. The CIA even flew to dubya's vacation ranch in Crawford, Texas > to personally call his attention to the PDB. > > And yet he did nothing about it. Yes, because the Clintonm left-overs WERE SO INCOMPETENT!!! You can't blame 9/11 on Bush, no matter how hard you try. Note again that Clinton HAD SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES TO KILL bin LAND AND DECIDED NOT TO. **THAT** is the bottom line. Bush is trying very hard to fight terrorism .. Clinton tried very hard NOT to fight terrorism! Nothing you can do will change that. Doug McDonald On Aug 22, 3:40 pm, Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote: > > So he knew about al-Qaeda. He knew that al-Qaeda was determined to > > attack. The CIA even flew to dubya's vacation ranch in Crawford, Texas [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Doug McDonald Can you name anyone whom you would call a "Clinton leftover" who was not approved by the incoming Bush group? The staffs are replaced by the incoming people, nobody hangs on. > > So he knew about al-Qaeda. He knew that al-Qaeda was determined to > > attack. The CIA even flew to dubya's vacation ranch in Crawford, Texas [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Doug McDonald not only do you drink the coolaide you ask for extra poison. stop listening to rush the junkie and 'loofa bill "o'lielly and get a clue. In alt.history.british Doug McDonald <mcdonald@snpoam_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote: >> So he knew about al-Qaeda. He knew that al-Qaeda was determined to >> attack. The CIA even flew to dubya's vacation ranch in Crawford, Texas >> to personally call his attention to the PDB. >> >> And yet he did nothing about it. >Yes, because the Clintonm left-overs WERE SO INCOMPETENT!!! >You can't blame 9/11 on Bush, no matter how hard you try. >Note again that Clinton HAD SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES TO >KILL bin LAND AND DECIDED NOT TO. I for one am so glad that Bush took all his several opportunities to get bin Laden and got him, each time. And since he's now been gotten so often, Bush has said that bin Laden is no longer important since al Qaeda has been crippled. Signature--- Paul J. Gans On Aug 22, 12:40 pm, Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote: |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message