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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: T L Comiskey who wrote (43386)	4/21/2004 10:02:36 PM
From: T L Comiskey	Respond to of 89467

villagevoice.com Among Questions Still Up In The Air Is Why Our Jet Fighters Weren't April 13th, 2004 12:45 PM After decades of promising that should the Soviets dare to attack, the American military would hurl missiles and planes into the air to defend the homeland within minutes, how come the country was without any air defense on 9-11, when, as Condi Rice put it last week, the Bush administration was at "battle stations"? Just 13 days before the attack, President Bush assured a group of veterans, "I will not permit any course that leaves America undefended." Only two jet fighters were scrambled when news of the first hijackings reached the military, and with American Flight 11 having changed course and heading straight for Manhattan, no one thought to order immediate evacuation of the WTC, a long-standing terrorist target, as well as other tall buildings in New York. There was about half an hour from the moment the FAA learned of the hijacking until a plane smashed into the building. Although there seemed to be sufficient time to protect the Pentagon, nothing was done there. By the time the Pentagon was hit, the military had managed to get two more jet fighters into the air, for a total of four. In his defensive and sometimes confusing testimony before the 9-11 Commission two weeks ago, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who was in his Pentagon office when the building was hit, first said he was without any real help in the Defense Department because appointees had not been approved or cleared to take their jobs. And he was more or less home alone. Anyhow, he couldn't have done anything about it anyway, because he didn't have authority over commercial jets. His job was defending the country's borders and working outside—not inside—the U.S. Controlling commercial jets—even when they had been turned into missiles—was out of his jurisdiction and was the FAA's responsibility. He did admit to having authority to protect the Pentagon, which despite ample warning, he didn't do. As for useful intelligence, while there had been a "spike" indicating some sort of possible activity somewhere in the world, Rumsfeld said, "I am reminded that most of that intelligence was focused on overseas threats and some of it focused on potential hijackings, and that steps were taken by the FAA to warn about potential hijackings. However, I don't recall receiving anything in the months prior to 9-11 that suggested terrorists might take commercial airliners and use them as missiles to fly into buildings like the World Trade Center towers or the Pentagon." In fact, as the Senate Intelligence Committee has noted in its report, there were any number of reports on precisely that sort of threat. What stands out about that day is the complete lack of air defense not just in New York City, but along the borders of the entire country. It turns out that since 1997 there have been only 14 fighter planes on active alert at any one time to defend the continental U.S. And in the months before 9-11, the Pentagon was trying to reduce the number further. Just after 9-11, the Los Angeles Times reported, "While defense officials say a decision had not yet been made, a reduction in air defenses had been gaining currency in recent months among task forces assigned by Rumsfeld to put together recommendations for a reassessment of the military." Also during this time, FAA officials sought to dispense with "primary" radar altogether, so that if a plane were to turn its transponder off, no radar could see it. Aviation Week & Space Technology reported on June 3, 2002, that NORAD—the warning system agency—had rejected the proposal. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: T L Comiskey who wrote (43386)	4/21/2004 10:46:18 PM
From: T L Comiskey	Respond to of 89467

topplebush.com

To: T L Comiskey who wrote (43386)	4/22/2004 9:24:05 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Congress should probe beyond nameless sources ________________________ April 22, 2004 One of the benefits of a free society is that citizens, aided by a free press, can examine the workings of their own government. That now is happening as Americans read reports of how the Bush administration took our nation to war in Iraq. Last month saw the publication of former anti-terrorism chief Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies." On Monday another book was released, "Plan of Attack," by Bob Woodward, the Washington Post journalist of Watergate fame. It is based on interviews with 75 Bush administration policymakers, including President Bush. Although the book has been closely guarded, on Sunday evening Woodward was interviewed by CBS's "60 Minutes" program and revealed some key points: The build-up to the war was paid for by funds Congress approved for use in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Tommy Franks, the U.S. commander, worked "out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs," Woodward said. "And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the preparations in Kuwait, specifically to make war possible." But, Woodward noted, the Constitution gives only Congress, not the president, the powers to spend money on specific programs. "Congress was totally in the dark on this," Woodward said. On Monday, reported The New York Times, "[T]he White House and the Pentagon said they had kept Congress informed of how they were allocating the money when they were required to." On Dec. 21, 2002, CIA Director George Tenet and his deputy, John McLaughlin, showed the president "their best evidence that Saddam really had weapons of mass destruction," reports Woodward. But the president was skeptical, saying to Tenet, "This is the best we've got?" Tenet replied, "The case, its a slam dunk." Alas, the president went against his own proper doubts and accepted Tenet's assurances. More books and other revelations will be coming out about this war, with books by President Bush, Rice and other top players presumably coming out after their terms in office end. But we can draw some conclusions from the revelations in the Woodward book. The first is that, as we have maintained all along, this was a war of choice, of prevention rather than preemption, that involved the United States in a quagmire that will prove difficult to get out of. The second is that Powell, or some other top administration official, should have blown the whistle on the administration's highly questionable war plans and the administration's circumvention of the Constitution in the early funding for the war. The third is that Congress needs to investigate thoroughly what happened. The American people deserve more than anonymous sources to tell us how we were led into this costly and deadly morass. kinston.com