An assumption that must be made or everything falls to pieces....

[kentuck]

As you watch the SOTU address by George W Bush tonight, most of his comments will revolve and connect around the events of 9/11 and the War in Iraq. In order for his comments to bear any resemblance to reality, you must assume that 9/11 would have happened no matter who was the president. Furthermore, you must assume that the war in Iraq was directly attributable to the events of 9/11 and is simply an extension to the war on terrorism.

If you do not assume this premise, then nothing that Bush or his speechwriters say really makes any sense. You must assume Bush had no responsibility to protect our nation on 9/11. It was not possible for him to do so. It would have happened if Al Gore had been the president. You must assume this or else, everything that he will say will have a tone of falsehood and unbelievability. There is a leap of faith involved. You must put all doubts aside.

[olacan]

1. I

do believe that the attack would have happened no matter who was in office. We have been attacked for years, granted most of them off shore, but attacks no less. This attack was not because of who was in office, but just one escalation in a long series of attacks, across many administrations. You may not want to believe it but look back at history. Is there a direct link between 911 and Iraq, probably not, indirectly I think there is a good possibility of that.

[kentuck]

2. Why do you believe that?

you must, otherwise nothing that George Bush says is credible. You cannot prove it...you simply believe it.

[olacan]

7. look

at the number of times we have been attacked. I for one was not surprised when we were attacked on 911. I was surprised in the manner it happened. I have felt for years that attacks would come to our shores. I figured it would be in the form of car bombs, water plants, dirty bombs etc. Do I have any proof no just 23+ years in the military the last 4 deep in the intelligence world. When I retired in 1985, the major problem was more information than could be analyzed. I knew of some new systems coming on-line that were just going to add to the problem. So yes the Intel world missed(IMHO) on this one but they also did not have the help they needed. I do not remember the author but I just finished a book "A thousand Years for Revenge" pick it up and read it.

[kentuck]

11. You are applying an equality to intelligence and information.....

that would be the same and interpreted the same, no matter who reads it and who is in charge. That is a difficult proposition for me to believe.

[el_gato]

13. they needed those attacks

the elite have had designs on control of eurasia for years but how do you mobilize a normally passive people to imperial invasion without someway to justify it? 9/11 that's how. The CFR and PNAC people have been waiting for their chance and all it took was for a the right people to look the other way.

[Sapphocrat]

12. So you boil the problem down to...

..."information overload"? I would think if there was that much chatter, for so long, the U.S. would have switched gears, organized the DHS, implemented color-coded security alerts, etc., long before 9/11, just as a precaution.

After all, we jump to "orange alert" on plenty of intel that is far less specific than the warning signs leading up to 9/11.

The more one learns, the more it appears that the spooks were doing their jobs, but have been made to take the fall for an administration that wasn't doing its job.

[el_gato]

14. the intelligence agencies are run by the elite

without regard for the nation or the needs of the people
they were set up for this very purpose

[Sapphocrat]

5. On a less abstract level...

Do you think 9/11 could have been prevented, based on what we know now about forewarning to the Bush* administration?

If so, then there's no guarantee the attacks would have happened regardless of who was in office.

[rbnyc]

15. I believe we MAY have been attacked...

...but I don't believe it would have been succesful.

The first WTC bombing obviously took place during the Clinton Administration. I agree with your basic premise, that we've had enemies throughout many administrations.

But George W Bush failed to protect us. He failed on many levels and for many reasons. I don't believe that Al Gore would have failed to protect us.

[PVnRT]

3. Would it have still happened?

I'm not entirely sure it wouldn't have - I think it was in planning for some time, and given that the right wing had the FBI running around chasing Clinton's penis and minor land deals in Arkansas, they had no time to check on these Saudis in the country who, oddly enough, were taking flying lessons but not learning how to land. And let's not forget the fact that since the right-wing holds gun rights as sacred above all else, they couldn't use gun purchase databases to see that they had bought guns...

I think Gore would've paid more attention to the report issued by Hart and the other guy, and better steps would've been taken, and maybe it would have been prevented. I think that is the major difference.

At any rate, when does Bush say anything remotely connected to reality?

[Sapphocrat]

8. You got it, IAJSR

And don't forget about Project Boijinka; the Phillipines sent a clear warning to the U.S. in January, 2001, that pretty much spelled out the whole plot.

But did * listen? Somebody must have listened to someone, somewhere; after all, Ashcroft was smart enough to stop taking commercial flights in the summer of '01.

[LeahMira]

9. Are Americans connected to reality?

I think Gore would've paid more attention to the report issued by Hart and the other guy, and better steps would've been taken, and maybe it would have been prevented. I think that is the major difference.

I agree, and I hate it that America gets so strung out over anything scandalous, especially scandalous and sexual too. We are, as a nation, really stuck on our bread and circuses. We say it's about character, but what sort of character fills his or her time with thinking about that nonsense? If Bush just gave Michael Jackson and Martha Stewart and Scott Peterson each ten minutes to talk, most Americans would be happy as pigs in mud.

[olacan]

10. Who

is in charge of the FBI, I thought it was the Attorney General?

[PVnRT]

16. The FBI has a director

Louis Freeh, I believe it was, under Clinton. The thing is, the special prosecutor has the authority to order an investigation on behalf of the government, whom he ostensibly represents; and since that makes it a federal case, that means the FBI has to do it.

This is not a judgment upon regular FBI working joes, as they have to follow orders or get fired. This is an indictment of the right-wing, that thinks government exists to carry out whatever vendetta (Clinton, Iraq, etc.) that they want it to carry out at the moment.

[Hubert Flottz]

4. If Bush's mouth is moving you can just about bet he's lying!

I watch those Lips and I always hear falsehood and unbelievability when they move, other than when they just smirk!

[hlthe2b]

6. can we get this reminder sent via closed captioning across all of

America's tv screens? There must be some way to wake folks up!