Remember this:Mossad warned CIA of attacks 9/11

[4dsc]

http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/09/17/News/News.34954.html

Mossad officials traveled to Washington last month to warn the CIA and the FBI that a cell of up to 200 terrorists was planning a major operation, according to a report in the Sunday Telegraph here yesterday.

The paper said the Israeli officials specifically warned their counterparts in Washington that "large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were imminent." They offered no specific information about targets, but they did link the plot to Afghanistan-based terrorist Osama bin Laden, and they told the Americans there were "strong grounds" for suspecting Iraqi involvement.

A US administration official told the paper that it was "quite credible" that the CIA did not heed the Mossad warning: "It has a history of being over-cautious about Israeli information." But the official noted that "if this is true, then the refusal to take it seriously will mean heads will roll."

[htuttle]

1. Not just Mossad

As I recall, Mossad then talked to Russian intelligence about it, who combined it with what they knew and also tried to warn the Bush administration.

I believe they also received warnings from about half a dozen other foreign intelligence agencies.

Clearly, either nobody was answering the phone at the White House, or they knew about it ahead of time.

[BOHICA06]

2. Again, not making excuses but ....

if this info came out at anytime prior to 9/11 (1998, 1999, 2000, 2001) and suddenly we're taking shoes off and I can't fly with my knife or nail clippers and there are long lines as passengers are profiled and screened and people are refused boarding....

Holy Smokes - we'd be screaming - the Repubs would say "Electioneering" if it happened in 2000 (particularly if you tried to nationalize airport screening), the Democrats would skewer the unelected Bushies and 90plus percent wouldn't believe the warnings at anytime.

If Burger or Tenet or Rice or Clinton or Bush had given a speech describing the worse case that Clarke did in his memo of 9/4 - we'd have listened for about two weeks and forgotten.

Clarke is right - we needed body bags - who knew we were going to have so many?

[terisel]

3. You can't be serious.

Clarke's memo was on 9/4/01 and you say we'd have listened for about 2 weeks and then forgotten. Are you saying making Clarke's memo public would have prevented the attack from being carried out on 9/11 ?

It is becoming increasingly clear from testimony and documents that the administration had specific information which they did not dissemminate appropriately, and that their hoarding of that information resulted in unneccessary loss of life on 9/11.

I think that at this point, as the commission helps put the puzzle together, we can say that George Bush is no Paul Revere. He refused to sound the alarm. I hope that as more pieces are included we won't have to say that George Bush is a Benedict Arnold.

[DulceDecorum]

4. Meanwhile, back at the ranch

The Disinformation of Richard Clarke
by Scott Loughrey

The apparent defection of former counter-terrorism official Richard Clarke is a propaganda coup for the Bush Regime. It is reminiscent of the old fable of the smart man who manages to elude a King’s scrutiny by smuggling wheel barrels past him in full view.
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/LOU403A.html

[BOHICA06]

8. No, that's not what I meant to say ...

In Clarke's public testimony, he said America often needs body bags to pay attention to a threat. With the atmosphere of 2001 before 9/11 - anyone - Democrat or Repub would have been called Chicken Little if they had enacted the safety measures that are now in place.

[forgethell]

5. How detailed was this information

I could go to the CIA today, and say, there's a terrorist cell in the US plotting to blowup -fill in the blan. I'd probably be right, too. People, if we cannot offer more serious criticsms than that, we are going to get blown away in November.

[DulceDecorum]

6. Does it have to be detailed?

If you said something that indicated you were interested in assassinating the president, the Secret Service or the FBI would show up on your doorstep in a flash.
Nobody would be asking for details.
They would nail you first and ask questions later.
In fact, I remember hearing about someone who was interviewed by the Men in Black because he said something peaceful but unflattering about the current pResident.

One of my on-line buddies got a visit from the FBI for publicly calling Bush "Crusader Bunnypants."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/02/03/12_pflag.html
http://www.hypocrites.com/article2338.html

My point is,
the Secret Service has the job of protecting the president.
The president has the job of protecting the nation.
So far the pResident does not seem to have been as successful at his job as the Secret Service has been at theirs.

As for November, Unless the Diebold/Scalia connection works overtime, Bush is history. The people of America have not enjoyed being screwed by Bush half as much as Monica enjoyed her enounters with Bill.

[forgethell]

7. If I said

someone had put out a contract on you, would you be able to protect yourself? Maybe, maybe not. do you know which of you enemies wants to kill you immediately?

Look, the federal beaucracy is just that. It is inefficient, slow, and protective of itself, regardless of the administration. Second, there are a lot of enemies out there. We are not taking all the steps that would work to protect ourselves now, because we don't want to give up liberties. Think 'profiling' won't help catch terrorists? It will, it will also harm innocent people. I have seen a lot of people on this board, complaining about *'s Iraq war asking, why not go into Syria, why not Saudi Arabia? Well, which is it? Is * doing to much, or not enough? Perhaps * went about the Iraq war the wrong way, but there is no doubt, and please don't send me any links to the contrary, I've read all of them I want to, that Saddam sponsored terrorisism. I refer specifically to his bounties to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. So maybe the invasion was a diversion and a waste of resources. But my question is: how can the Dems do better??

Over the next few months, I expect that Sen Kerry will be developing his plan for combating Islamic terrorism and sharing it with the electorate. I hope it is a great one that convinces the American people to elect him with an overwhelming majority. BUT - even if it is, and even if he is elected and implements it, DO YOU REALLY THINK that if will be 100% effective in preventing terrorist acts in the United States?? Because I don't, and only a fool would. Without a total clampdown of society no one can come close, maybe not even then.

So my point is, bash * all you want to. I'll do it with you. But, Christ, there is so much legitimate stuff to do it with, we don't need to say he didn't "do' enough on terrorism. Clinton's administration didn't "do" enough, either, for the same reason - it would have been politically impossible.

I think the issue will turn on whether on not the voters think going to was the right decision. this other stuff may harm *, but it may backfire big, too.

[DulceDecorum]

9. Any Mafia Don

can protect himself and his organization. Otherwise he doesn't get to stay capo for very long.
Every Mafia Don has threats from within the organization and problems coming from outside the organization.
How is it that these crooks manage to stay afloat when the US of A is sitting shivering looking at colored cards.

The US of A has the BIGGEST military in the whole world. It prints up IOUs and makes other nations use them as if they are actually worth something. But yet and still, the US of A is running scared of a diabetic hiding in a cave.
Not since the case of Ignaz Mezei has there been such an international farce.

Who was Ignatz Mezei and why should you care?
This man, who seems to have led a life of unrelieved insignificance, must have been astonished to find himself suddenly putting the Government of the United States in such fear that it was afraid to tell him why it was afraid of him.
http://internet.ggu.edu/university_library/if/Mezei.html

Don Corleone would simply have made him an offer,
and that, my friends, would have been that.
None of this genuine-imitation yellow-jello
Mommy-Mommy-there's-a-monster-under-my-bed crap.

Hey, since we are now afraid of
Muslims-who-can-change-the-laws-of-physics,
is it now OK to hang out with
Romanians-with-connections-to-two-liars-and-seven-sacks-of-flour?