What is wrong with our intelligence in the U.S. govt.?

[Coco]

I remember watching t.v. 7 YEARS AGO, and seeing Osama declaring war on the U.S. In 7 years we couldn't find this guy and we had the tragedy we did.

I have read reports in the newspaper that Osama may still be alive. We now have had prisoners for months that proably knew Osama, and we know nothing?

______________________

We can't change our past, but we can change the way we look at it - into something more positive

[Knowledged_one]

What this has to do with military intelligence is beyond me but here goes:

Oh yeah if you love bill clinton you may want to skip this

The reason is this when Clinton came into the presidency the main focus was on the economy and not so much foreign policy which clinton was admittedly poor at. After that clintons main issues was welfare and medicare reform which he accomplished neither of.
At around 1994-1995, we began to get involved in various parts of the world and the skirmishes there such as yugoslavia, bosnia, somalia and relations in the middle east.
Then began terror attacks on the U.S. such as the first WTC bombing, the bombing of embassys in africa and the bombing of the USS Cole. Clintons response to these attacks was not to go in and shut down these camps with forces but to instead fire Cruise missiles at the terrorist training camps and hope they would do the job and they did not. Why didnt clinton go after these people directly is still a mystery perhaps it was the fact of what happened when one helicopter got shot down in Somalia, or fear of reprecussions if the missions failed and it got out to the press or maybe he was to busy catching some skull to really care.
The more likely reason is that clinton did what he did through his entire presidency: apply a quick fix and forget about it till the next guy takes over
Thats what he did with the economy when he failed to regulate the dot com ITT stocks and now look at the economy. Dont blame military intelligence for what Clinton refused to take care of

Shaolin shadowboxing, and the Wu-Tang sword style
If what you say is true, the Shaolin and the Wu-Tang
could be dangerous
Do you think your Wu-Tang sword can defeat me?

En garde, I'll let you try my Wu-Tang style

[Coco]

I agree with most of what you say K.O., I blame a lot of what happened on Clinton. I, too NEVER liked him and consider him the worst dirtbag president we ever had.

But, why are we getting any answers now?

______________________

We can't change our past, but we can change the way we look at it - into something more positive

[Gvac]

Dick Morris, Clinton's former political consultant and one time close friend and confidant, has written extensively on how his former boss had little interest in terrorism. In fact, Morris states that on at least 2 occasions during his presidency, Clinton was offered Bin Laden and refused him both times.

But he felt everybody's pain, admitted to smoking pot and wearing boxers, and cheated on his wife with a college intern, so I guess I can understand why he was such an immensely popular president.




<img src=http://gvac.50megs.com/images/capsig.jpg>

[sunndoggy8]

The reason is this when Clinton came into the presidency the main focus was on the economy and not so much foreign policy which clinton was admittedly poor at.


Okey first of all, there had to be a focus on the economy...there was a recession in the early 90's, remember? That tends to make a president focus on the economy.

Secondly, Clinton was not "admittedly poor" at foreign policy. I don't see where you get that from, considering all the effort he put into the middle east. Yea it didn't work, but he put MASSIVE EFFORT into it. So what you're saying is wrong.

And so is your chronology of the facts of what happened, by the way, without giving a history lesson about them.

The point here is that you can say whatever you'd like about whomever you like in the goverment, but no one expected what was expected. If you're going to blame Clinton, then you had better blame the first Bush admin(not killing saddam?), and Bush Jr.';s admin as well(remember than little memo?), because ALL THREE of them are to blame for intelligence failures.

It's great to just say it's Clinton's fault, because then blame has been placed and everyone feels better. But it's NOT THAT SIMPLE. Life never is.

And you say the more likely story is that Clinton wanted a quick fix. Um, I sincerely doubt there was support of an all out attack on terrorism before 9/11...isn't that obvious? It was not a governmental priority for Bush Jr. beforehand. He even said he didn't "want to get bogged down" in the middle east with all it's terrorist problems...so I sincerely doubt Clinton would have gotten support for a war against terrorism, b/c Bush jr. wouldn't have prior to 9/11 either.

And the economy is not in the state it is b/c Clinton didn't regulate stocks...I think you need to take an econ. course, because you're WAY OFF as to why the economy is in the state it's in.

And to quote you:

Dont blame military intelligence for what Clinton refused to take care of


Don't blame Clinton for what every politician and administration should have paid attention to since prior the Soviet fall. It's a massive failure, not a single individuals fault. Clinton f'ed up, but so did the Bushes and countless others in both political parties.

<IMG SRC="http://home.att.net/~sunndoggy8/RFnetSunndoggy8.jpg" width=300 height=100>

<i><b><font color="#0F00CD">"You should've seen her face. It was the exact same look my father gave me when I told him I wanted to be a ventriloquist."</font color="#0F00CD"></b></i>

[sunndoggy8]

But, why are we getting any answers now?


Who knows...part of me would like to say that the government has some and that they're working on those answers...but another part of me doesn't trust the government either based on the countless fuck ups over the past decade or so.

And gvac, don't forget that Dick Morris, your source himself, had quite the few problems cheating on his wife and being recorded revealing government information and the such...not saying that what he said isn't/is true, but consider your source.

And in terms of Clinton being offered Bin Laden, I again refer you to the fact that there wasn't support enough to put out an all out effort to kill Bin Laden. That's why those cruise missiles were flying in instead of troops.


<IMG SRC="http://home.att.net/~sunndoggy8/RFnetSunndoggy8.jpg" width=300 height=100>

<i><b><font color="#0F00CD">"You should've seen her face. It was the exact same look my father gave me when I told him I wanted to be a ventriloquist."</font color="#0F00CD"></b></i>

[Captain Rooster]

Three words: Bill Clinton sucks.



<CENTER><img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/ltr.gif>
</CENTER><BR>
<CENTER>Human Saw Mill
</CENTER>

[Captain Rooster]

perhaps it was the fact of what happened when one helicopter got shot down in Somalia


Just an FYI, not an attempt to sharpshoot you, there were two Blackhawk helicopters shot down; 18 soldiers killed, 84 wounded and 1 (Mike Durant) taken prisoner.


sunndoggy8, what, "MASSIVE EFFORT" did Clinton or his administration put forth?

Reagan - Legitimate air strikes on Libya

Bush (Sr.) - Operation Desert Storm

Clinton - Got a hummer and let soldiers, airmen, and sailors be blown to bits.

Bush - Operation Enduring Freedom

Give me a break Doggy; Clinton is a disgrace to all the men and women who made this country great.

Little trivia - How many times did Clinton meet with the Director of the CIA during his time on office?




<CENTER><img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/ltr.gif>
</CENTER><BR>
<CENTER>Human Saw Mill
</CENTER>

This message was edited by LTRooster on 6-19-02 @ 8:18 PM

[JerseyRich]

Little trivia - How many times did Clinton meet with the Director of the CIA during his time on office?


Answer: Once...he thought he had stumbled upon the secret Congressional strip club...but it turns out it what the CIA Director's office.

<img src=http://home.ix.netcom.com/~camman/_uimages/StaplesJR.gif>
Kill Some Ants, Kill Some Ants

[Captain Rooster]

((winning cowbell))

EXACTLY!



<CENTER><img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/ltr.gif>
</CENTER><BR>
<CENTER>Human Saw Mill
</CENTER>

This message was edited by LTRooster on 6-19-02 @ 8:24 PM

[Knowledged_one]

So my time line was not 100% on the point i did it simply off the cuff. But heres a few more things for you:
1. George Bush was not allowed to take out Saddam Hussein because of a law that Gerald Ford signed saying we would not assassinate any heads of states of any country nor cause the overthrowing of any government (my guess after unsuccesful stints in Korea, Vietnam and Cuba this was the best way to keep us out of wars) and only recently has that been changed.
2. Clintons focus on the economy was important early in his presidency but the truth is the economy was coming out of the recession when Clinton took office and the economies upswing was/is mainly attributed to programs that Bush already had in place prior to Clinton and Clinton just took the ball and ran with it. I mean other then taking credit for that what did Clinton do in 8 years of being president. And the reason the economy was in such a bad state when he took over was because of the war that Regan faught against the soviets. True no massive battles took place but it was Regans spending of more money then Russia that won us the Cold War. And after all that military and technological build-up and no war happened the money disappeared and jobs were lost. No real fault of Bush's.
3. No one is assigning blame for september 11th on Clinton only the fact that he did not go after Bin Laden or any other organizations. And what did Clinton do in the Mid East other then pussy out to Hussein and allow him to kick weapons inspectors out over 3 years ago. Yeah it was a "U.N." mission but was really driven by the big dog on the block the U.S. And putting effort into something and succedding at something are two different things.

ANd instead of pointing things out and saying take an economics class try explaining your point

Shaolin shadowboxing, and the Wu-Tang sword style
If what you say is true, the Shaolin and the Wu-Tang
could be dangerous
Do you think your Wu-Tang sword can defeat me?

En garde, I'll let you try my Wu-Tang style

[HordeKing1]

The answer to a good deal of uncertainty about potential future terrorist acts can be easily obtained.

Torture and kill the al queida and other terrorist. Doings so to an avowed enemy of America to save hundreds potentially thousands of American life is completely justified.

Any student of ethcs must conclude that certainly the life of the guilty are forfeit in hope of saving other life.

<img src="http://members.aol.com/rnfpantera/hking1">

[Captain Rooster]

Knowledged_one, I was not trying to diminish you point; just clarifying it, bro;)



<CENTER><img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/ltr.gif>
</CENTER><BR>
<CENTER>Human Saw Mill
</CENTER>

[nycenice]

our inteeligence can't do certain things and we have to accept that. isreal can't stop every suicide bomber and that place is a lot smaller than the us and they can't take care of that area. there are limtations on what our intellingence agency's can do and that hurts them but at the same time no limitations damages or right to privacy so it's a no win situation. just gotta face facts somethings won't present themselves till we see em in the papers


<img src=http://hometown.aol.com/muldermanx/nycenice.gif>
the member that no one knows or acknowledges.big thanks to pootertoot for
the great sig pic
furies forever the warriors were pussies

[Knowledged_one]

It wasnt you i was directing it at rooster. I appreciate the fact you could fill that info in because like i said i was only writing on memory of the timeline and the exact events and didnt bother to look it up when writing. Again Thanks

Shaolin shadowboxing, and the Wu-Tang sword style
If what you say is true, the Shaolin and the Wu-Tang
could be dangerous
Do you think your Wu-Tang sword can defeat me?

En garde, I'll let you try my Wu-Tang style

[A.J.]

True, Clinton can be blamed -- to a point. On his watch there were 4 separate acts of terrorism against America (which were mentioned by Knowledged One) that went relatively unchallenged (the failed Tomahawk attacks notwithstanding).

I have to stress that the Clinton Presidency was exemplified by "symbolism over substance." Every decision was made on the basis of polling. The man even took polls on where to vacation. Clinton was always concerned about his "legacy". So, he concerned himself with trying to broker peace in Haiti, Northern Ireland, Bosnia, and the Middle East in the hopes of getting himself a Nobel Peace Prize (which he actively campaigned for -- an unprecendented act) something which would give greater prestige to his Presidency that his numerous scandals threatened to diminish. In principle, these were well-untended efforts but in reality the motivation was one of urgency and self-promotion, not careful deliberation. Decades, even centuries-old disputes cannot be solved overnight.

Unfortunately these 4 attacks happened during a time Clinton was either trying to win re-election or repair his image. As a result they did not meet with an appropriate military response and Al Qaeda grew bolder and more aggressive.

I would argue that some blame also lies with Congress.

First, for at least 25 years Congress appropriated money for high-tech satellites and electonic intelligence rather than on human intelligence (spies). This has proven to be a tremendous mistake in planning to counter future threats. We've had to reactivate RETIRED personnel who were expert in Central Asian history and languages.

Second, Congress made the FBI and CIA separate entities with specific areas of responsibilities (CIA -- international affairs, FBI -- domestic). No interaction between the two was allowed for fear of creating a "secret police force". The result was that the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing.

Making the FBI and CIA work together is partly the impetus for the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.

Look, I hated Clinton but even I wouldn't lay total blame upon him. Like Pearl Harbor, it took attacks on our homeland to make the U.S. change its views on what constitute "threats" and take action to put in place the organizations and agencies needed to prevent them from happening again.


<IMG SRC="http://norraccm.freeservers.com/images/rnf_ajindc_01.jpg"><br> ® Made By Christy ¯

[Death Metal Moe]

WOW! Hordeking wants people tortured and killed? COOL!

But hey, we can't blame EVERYTHING on Clinton. We can blame out inability to see the growing threat on him. But I still blame religion, and these sick extrimists first, of course. In a prefect world, the USA should be able to just worry about itself, and grow it's own economy. BUt hey, nothing's perfect.

EVIL REIGNS!!!

Sig Pic is FUCKING BUSTED!!

www.unhallowed.com

[Yerdaddy]

And what did Clinton do in the Mid East other then pussy out to Hussein and allow him to kick weapons inspectors out over 3 years ago
Just to correct a point here - I had dinner with Scott Ritter who was the chief weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 until they were PULLED OUT of Iraq by the Clinton administration, in order to justify the Operation Desert Fox bombing campaign. At the time they were pulled out, Iraq was qualitatively disarmed. According to Mr Ritter, the ONLY thing that would secure Iraq's weapons of mass destruction is having inspectors on the ground. The inspection teams were very effective at finding and destroying Iraq's weapons, but the desire to have Saddam as an enemy has kept Clinton and Bush from allowing inspectors to return. "Taking Saddam out" will require at least 200,000 US troops and will not rid Iraq of the weapons of mass destrucion unless we want a post-WWII Japan-style occupation.

So, yes, Clinton's Iraq policies were driven by domestic partisan politics rather than actual security concearns, just not in the way it's generally understood. And Bush's Iraq policy is equally driven by domestic partisan politics at the expense of international security.

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/sigtussle.jpg" >
If I don't make you laugh, you don't know what felch means.

[Yerdaddy]

I just found out that Ritter has an OP-ED in the LA Times on the subject today, and since you need to register to read it on-line I'll post it.

COMMENTARY
Behind 'Plot' on Hussein, a Secret Agenda
Killing weapons inspections would clear way for war.
By SCOTT RITTER
Scott Ritter, a former U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq, is author of "Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem, Once and for All" (Simon & Schuster, 1999).

June 19 2002

President Bush has reportedly authorized the CIA to use all of the means at its disposal--including U.S. military special operations forces and CIA paramilitary teams--to eliminate Iraq's Saddam Hussein. According to reports, the CIA is to view any such plan as "preparatory" for a larger military strike.

Congressional leaders from both parties have greeted these reports with enthusiasm. In their rush to be seen as embracing the president's hard-line stance on Iraq, however, almost no one in Congress has questioned why a supposedly covert operation would be made public, thus undermining the very mission it was intended to accomplish.

It is high time that Congress start questioning the hype and rhetoric emanating from the White House regarding Baghdad, because the leaked CIA plan is well timed to undermine the efforts underway in the United Nations to get weapons inspectors back to work in Iraq. In early July, the U.N. secretary-general will meet with Iraq's foreign minister for a third round of talks on the return of the weapons monitors. A major sticking point is Iraqi concern over the use--or abuse--of such inspections by the U.S. for intelligence collection.

I recall during my time as a chief inspector in Iraq the dozens of extremely fit "missile experts" and "logistics specialists" who frequented my inspection teams and others. Drawn from U.S. units such as Delta Force or from CIA paramilitary teams such as the Special Activities Staff (both of which have an ongoing role in the conflict in Afghanistan), these specialists had a legitimate part to play in the difficult cat-and-mouse effort to disarm Iraq. So did the teams of British radio intercept operators I ran in Iraq from 1996 to 1998--which listened in on the conversations of Hussein's inner circle--and the various other intelligence specialists who were part of the inspection effort.

The presence of such personnel on inspection teams was, and is, viewed by the Iraqi government as an unacceptable risk to its nation's security.

As early as 1992, the Iraqis viewed the teams I led inside Iraq as a threat to the safety of their president. They were concerned that my inspections were nothing more than a front for a larger effort to eliminate their leader.

Those concerns were largely baseless while I was in Iraq. Now that Bush has specifically authorized American covert-operations forces to remove Hussein, however, the Iraqis will never trust an inspection regime that has already shown itself susceptible to infiltration and manipulation by intelligence services hostile to Iraq, regardless of any assurances the U.N. secretary-general might give.

The leaked CIA covert operations plan effectively kills any chance of inspectors returning to Iraq, and it closes the door on the last opportunity for shedding light on the true state of affairs regarding any threat in the form of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Absent any return of weapons inspectors, no one seems willing to challenge the Bush administration's assertions of an Iraqi threat. If Bush has a factual case against Iraq concerning weapons of mass destruction, he hasn't made it yet.

Can the Bush administration substantiate any of its claims that Iraq continues to pursue efforts to reacquire its capability to produce chemical and biological weapons, which was dismantled and destroyed by U.N. weapons inspectors from 1991 to 1998? The same question applies to nuclear weapons. What facts show that Iraq continues to pursue nuclear weapons aspirations?

Bush spoke ominously of an Iraqi ballistic missile threat to Europe. What missile threat is the president talk

[Coco]

Is it just me or doesn't anyone else think it is odd that in 2002 with all the technology we have, prisoners of war (who we have had for months now), that we still don't even know whether Osama is still alive (I mean beside the other issues you guys have talked about)?

______________________

We can't change our past, but we can change the way we look at it - into something more positive

[Captain Rooster]

...we still don't even know whether Osama is still alive (I mean beside the other issues you guys have talked about)?



We turned the Tora Bora cave complex into a sandbox. It's hard to for technology to search for a man who may be buried beneath tons of rock and sand.

<CENTER><img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/ltr.gif>
</CENTER><BR>
<CENTER>Human Saw Mill
</CENTER>

[A.J.]

We turned the Tora Bora cave complex into a sandbox. It's hard to for technology to search for a man who may be buried beneath tons of rock and sand.


AND, the POWs at Gitmo may actually not know. That is the the point of "terrorist cells" -- the members of each cell have little or no direct contact with other cells. This is why some of the hijackers on 11 SEP did not know that their mission would be a suicide mission.

Also, it is a precautionary measure in case members are captured they won't be able to reveal any important information.

<IMG SRC="http://norraccm.freeservers.com/images/rnf_ajindc_01.jpg"><br> ® Made By Christy ¯