Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Fred Levine who wrote (562217)	4/9/2004 8:38:34 AM
From: Poet	Respond to of 769670

This is a compelling post, Fred, deeply so. It's unusual on this thread to hear such reason reason and honest emotion in posts on this thread. wrt this: I live next door to the 9/11 morgue where body parts are still being identified, and I'm pissed. I am so sorry. It behooves us to remember that many more people thanvictim's families feel daily the effects of the attack. And this shocks me: In addition, why did Ashcroft reduce the anti-terrorism budget by $58,000,000 on 9/10/01? Can anyone here try to account for this serious lack of judgement?

To: Fred Levine who wrote (562217)	4/9/2004 8:53:02 AM
From: H-Man	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Rices testimony was not refuted by anybody. And as I understand it, they are reviewing it to see if they can release the document. Furthermore, given that Ben Veniste did not want to let Rice answer the question (Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? ), it is quite apparent that he was playing political gotcha, and not seeking real answers. I doubt that he REALLY wants that document released. You seem to be under the impression that if all of the cabinet heads get together, that heaven opens and all things good happen. In fact, these are simply review meetings, the real work gets done elsewhere. The Bush administration was continuing the the Clinton policy. There were covert actions intended to disrupt Al Qaeda of varying types including assassinations (Go back and review the transcript). GWB & Rice recognized this as inadequate and they were doing something about it. Does everybody wish it could have happened faster? Of course.

To: Fred Levine who wrote (562217)	4/9/2004 11:52:28 AM
From: DavesM	Respond to of 769670

Fred, The Patriot Act is a concrete anti-terrorist action made by the Bush Administration. Before the Patriot Act, the CIA and the FBI could not easily share or evaluate each others information on international (job of the CIA) and domestic (job of the FBI) terrorists - this integration was previously the job of the "czar of counter-terrorism". The American attack and overthrow of the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan is also a concrete anti-terrorist action by the United States, has to at least some extent disrupted al Qaeda. It's well enough to say (as Richard Clarke) that we should have invaded Afghanistan and routed bin Laden out sooner. The problem, is that the 9-11 attack had been planned and approved by bin Laden years in advance. This means, that 9-11 would have still happened, but it would have looked like an al Qadeda response to an American attack. If the United States, bombed al Qaeda and Taliban bases, the Airforce would have to fly over Pakistan (which could warn al Qaeda in advance when an attack was coming). If missiles or cruise missiles would have been fired at Afghanistan, Pakistan would still have to be warned, as the United States wouldn't want a nuclear war to break out between India and Pakistan - because the Pakistanis mistook American missiles fired at the Taliban, for Indian missiles fired at them.