OT – Where *WAS* Bin Laden…
Question:
I can’t help but notice the following… (from the CNN article) What made him especially qualified for that mission was that he had developed two plans to capture or kill bin Laden, once in 1998 and then again a year later. Both were turned down by higher-ups in the CIA and the White House. And this following quote… "Everybody in the agency felt a sense of frustration that we hadn’t taken a shot [in 1998 and 1999] — especially the second time, which was after the bombings that al Qaeda conducted in Africa," he said. "But the decision was made based on policy considerations back in Washington, so we [soldiered] on." May we infer that these "policy considerations back in Washington" allowed the Al Quaida to continue on with it’s mission(s) unfettered..?? Maybe the next time Clinton is on Larry King he could talk about these "considerations". The *press*, who normally loves to take any story about Washington culpability firmly in its’ teeth, seem to have little to say about these "policy considerations" and the subsequent 9/11 attack. Mr. Clinton did say some rather nice things about Mr. Bush and the war in Iraq, which means that he is still watching the polls quite closely. On an amp related note… I got to play the Reverend Goblin and I like it a LOT. The *neo* spkrs they are using sound very nice and the amp is quite light. gtski
Response:
OIL = dems and repubs with industrial interests plus old anti-communist bedfellows. The enemy of my enemy is my friend theory.
Response:
> On an amp related note… I got to play the Reverend Goblin and I like it > a LOT. The *neo* spkrs they are using sound very nice and the amp is quite > light.
I had been thinking about buying one, and from what I read it sounded cool. It flips from 5watts to 15watts, and American, Brit, and Gonzo settings would make it pretty flexible. Did you try the different tone settings? See ya, John
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->On an amp related note… I got to play the Reverend Goblin and I like it >a LOT. The *neo* spkrs they are using sound very nice and the amp is quite >light. > I had been thinking about buying one, and from what I read it sounded cool. > It flips from 5watts to 15watts, and American, Brit, and Gonzo settings > would make it pretty flexible. Did you try the different tone settings? > See ya, > John
Yes. I played it using a couple of Reverends guitars.. one with humbuckers, and one with P-90s. Very Nice..! ! The different "tone" settings give it a multi-facceted appeal… Reverend *seems* to be calling it a "practice amp", that can be used at small gigs. It is LOUD for such a small package, and while I didn’t get to play it REAL loud, I think it would in fact be usable at small gigs. One thing about trying it out at a show, since it can’t be "cranked up" it’s hard to tell the difference between 5 and 15 watts.. it is quite loud at the 5 watt setting. I think that if a bunch of guys sat down to jam, and they all had Goblins, it would be loud enough to be "fun" and not bring the cops. And I think everyone would get a "kick" playing these little beasts. My guess… if you try one, you’ll buy one. gtski PS- if a gigging musician wanted to buy a *new* rig that would cover most of what they needed to do, one could buy a Reverend guitar, a Kingsnake, a Goblin, and a couple of "Reverend Approved" pedals and be done. For the "bigger" venues, just add a Reverend external spkr, 1×12 or the new 2×12. NOTE – I don’t work for, nor am I affiliated in any way with the Reverend company, these are merely my opinions and mine alone. ;-)
Response:
> I can’t help but notice the following…
I can’t help but notice that you didn’t cite the article! > (from the CNN article) > What made him especially qualified for that mission was that he had > developed two plans to capture or kill bin Laden, once in 1998 and > then again a year later. Both were turned down by higher-ups in the > CIA and the White House.
Are you referring to Clarke? Read his book… > And this following quote… > "Everybody in the agency felt a sense of frustration that we hadn’t > taken a shot [in 1998 and 1999] — especially the second time, which > was after the bombings that al Qaeda conducted in Africa," he said. > "But the decision was made based on policy considerations back in > Washington, so we [soldiered] on." > May we infer that these "policy considerations back in Washington" > allowed the Al Quaida to continue on with it’s mission(s) unfettered..??
No… read Clarke. Clinton was hindered by the military and CIA reluctance to take personnel or publicity hits… Clinton took a major ‘wag the dog’ hit from conservatives after the cruise-missile launching. Go back and read some of it, if you can stand the pain. Clinton authorized the planning… Clarke handed him a complete plan. By this time, the Inauguration was coming up… Clinton would have handed Bush a war instead of a plan. In retrospect, he shouldn’t have trusted Bush… isn’t that ironic, that perhaps Clinton’s biggest mistake was to trust W. Tenet and Clarke were practically *screaming* at the W admin to take out al Qaeda, all plans in place. W et al ignored it… until finally, September 4, 2001, the entire plan, as handed down by the Clinton admin nine months before, was approved in toto. Too late. Your boy screwed the pooch… then covered it up by attacking Iraq. We’re still paying for it. __ Steve .
Response:
>>I can’t help but notice the following… > I can’t help but notice that you didn’t cite > the article!
Right..! ! ! It somehow didn’t "paste" in.. sorry..! ! ! http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/31/schuster.column/index.html >(from the CNN article) >What made him especially qualified for that mission was that he had >developed two plans to capture or kill bin Laden, once in 1998 and >then again a year later. Both were turned down by higher-ups in the >CIA and the White House. > Are you referring to Clarke? Read his book…
No. But I’ve heard him interviewed. He seems to have ‘back-pedaled’ a bit on his "claims". – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->And this following quote… >"Everybody in the agency felt a sense of frustration that we hadn’t >taken a shot [in 1998 and 1999] — especially the second time, which >was after the bombings that al Qaeda conducted in Africa," he said. >"But the decision was made based on policy considerations back in >Washington, so we [soldiered] on." >May we infer that these "policy considerations back in Washington" >allowed the Al Quaida to continue on with it’s mission(s) unfettered..?? > No… read Clarke. Clinton was hindered by the military > and CIA reluctance to take personnel or publicity hits… > Clinton took a major ‘wag the dog’ hit from conservatives > after the cruise-missile launching. Go back and read > some of it, if you can stand the pain.
Not painfull to me. I’m immune from political bullshit. Either party, same bullshit… it just seems the Reps are better at it, and don’t pretend to be "everybodys" saviour… (!?!?!?!) Clinton opted out of PLENTY of opportunities to "do the right thing" concerning Bin Laden and Al Quaeda… and the cruize missile launch was laughed off by Bin Laden most of all. > Clinton authorized the planning… Clarke handed him a > complete plan.
Presidents ALWAYS authourize *plans*… the CIA and military plan constantly for many, many contingencies/wars/actions. It’s the plans that are put into action that *count*. > By this time, the Inauguration was coming up… Clinton would have handed Bush a war instead of > a plan.
By that time, he’d mucked everything up plenty. Long before then he and Albright had already shown Bin Laden, that in Somalia, the USA would cut-and-run after bad press from a helicopter shot-down. Clinton had 8 yrs of intel and chances to kill/capture Bin Laden. Saying he defered in the last 6 months is a joke. > In retrospect, he shouldn’t have trusted Bush… > isn’t that ironic, that perhaps Clinton’s biggest mistake > was to trust W. Tenet and Clarke were practically > *screaming* at the W admin to take out al Qaeda, > all plans in place.
In retrospect, if Clinton had acted on the intel in his FIRST term, things would have been diferent. I CAN understand Clinton hoping Bush would do what he didn’t… > W et al ignored it… until finally, > September 4, 2001, the entire plan, as handed down > by the Clinton admin nine months before, was > approved in toto. Too late.
Clintons *plan*…??? "Handed down" …?? So, the Clinton admin handed over a plan that IT was too befulded to impliment and *hoped* Bush had the balls to do it…??? > Your boy screwed the pooch… then covered it > up by attacking Iraq.
Umm.. didn’t Clinton do the "screwing"..??? We’re still paying for it. IMMHO, Bush will be remembered for *freeing* Afghanistan, and Iraq… and actually DOING something about international terrorism, while Clinton will be remembered for what he is remembered for now, a tawdry sex-scandal. BTW – today, June 6th might be a good day for you to consider the "costs" of this *war* against costs of previous wars/conflicts. D-Day was but one battle of one theater of one war against one enemy. Google up some casualty figures… then google up some casualty figures of the next 6 months of war in Europe. Then compare that to the losses for then entire Afghan and Iraq confict over the last few years. While your on the subject of "costs", compare the dollar cost as a percentage of USA GNP for WWII, Korea, VietNam, Gulf war I, and Gulf war II… let’s hear your insight on comparitive "costs" of war/conflict. Do you have a beef with the Marshall Plan…??? That money, if saved and not spent, would by now provide free medical and retirement benefits for every American alive. Maybe it was better spent how it was…??? Were taxpayers crying about "spending our grand-kids money" back during the Marshall Plan…??? Are YOU missing those dollars…??? gtski – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> __ > Steve > .
Response:
Stephen Cowell, tied to the tracks, said: … > No… read Clarke. Clinton was hindered by the military > and CIA reluctance to take personnel or publicity hits…
Oh, horse crap. Poor, innocent, wimpy Bill couldn’t blow his own nose, it was all everyone else’s fault. But almighty George, he just blows his nose and that signals that millions of lackeys go kill people. You can’t have it both ways.
Response:
>>I can’t help but notice the following… > I can’t help but notice that you didn’t cite > the article! > Right..! ! ! It somehow didn’t "paste" in.. sorry..! ! ! > http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/31/schuster.column/index.html
… > Are you referring to Clarke? Read his book… > No. But I’ve heard him interviewed. He seems to have ‘back-pedaled’ > a bit on his "claims".
I’m reading the paperback edition… dated 2004. It’s dynamite. Provide a cite for any retraction of his… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>And this following quote… >>"Everybody in the agency felt a sense of frustration that we hadn’t >>taken a shot [in 1998 and 1999] — especially the second time, which >>was after the bombings that al Qaeda conducted in Africa," he said. >>"But the decision was made based on policy considerations back in >>Washington, so we [soldiered] on." >>May we infer that these "policy considerations back in Washington" >>allowed the Al Quaida to continue on with it’s mission(s) unfettered..?? > No… read Clarke. Clinton was hindered by the military > and CIA reluctance to take personnel or publicity hits… > Clinton took a major ‘wag the dog’ hit from conservatives > after the cruise-missile launching. Go back and read > some of it, if you can stand the pain. > Not painfull to me. I’m immune from political bullshit. Either party, > same bullshit… it just seems the Reps are better at it, and don’t > pretend to be "everybodys" saviour… (!?!?!?!) Clinton opted out of > PLENTY of opportunities to "do the right thing" concerning Bin Laden > and Al Quaeda… and the cruize missile launch was laughed off by Bin > Laden most of all.
Do you assert that this information is contained in the book referenced above (in the CNN article)? There was inside knowledge of a big meeting… if the Military could have pulled it off without telegraphing the missile launch (the book goes into detail), then Musharraf would have been over a barrel, at dinner with the American ambassador, assured that the missiles were ours, headed for Taliban camps. The military bungled it bad… telegraphed its punch with hours to go. > Clinton authorized the planning… Clarke handed him a > complete plan. > Presidents ALWAYS authourize *plans*… the CIA and military plan > constantly for many, many contingencies/wars/actions. It’s the plans > that are put into action that *count*.
Indeed… where was W? > By this time, the Inauguration was coming up… Clinton would have
handed Bush a war instead of > a plan. > By that time, he’d mucked everything up plenty. Long before then he > and Albright had already shown Bin Laden, that in Somalia, the USA > would cut-and-run after bad press from a helicopter shot-down.
Then why did Bush do nothing? >Clinton > had 8 yrs of intel and chances to kill/capture Bin Laden. Saying he > defered in the last 6 months is a joke.
If you don’t read the book, I’m not going to quote it all here for you. I urge the others reading here to read Clarke. > In retrospect, he shouldn’t have trusted Bush… > isn’t that ironic, that perhaps Clinton’s biggest mistake > was to trust W. Tenet and Clarke were practically > *screaming* at the W admin to take out al Qaeda, > all plans in place. > In retrospect, if Clinton had acted on the intel in his FIRST term, > things would have been diferent. I CAN understand Clinton hoping Bush > would do what he didn’t…
Remember the Millenium plot? Clinton nipped that one in the bud… what we learned from that was… nobody cares. You’re better off politically to let the attack come through, then you have carte blanche. Bush applied that lesson well. > W et al ignored it… until finally, > September 4, 2001, the entire plan, as handed down > by the Clinton admin nine months before, was > approved in toto. Too late. > Clintons *plan*…??? "Handed down" …?? So, the Clinton admin > handed over a plan that IT was too befulded to impliment and *hoped* > Bush had the balls to do it…???
‘Befulded’? Freudian, that! Anyway, read the book. > Your boy screwed the pooch… then covered it > up by attacking Iraq. > Umm.. didn’t Clinton do the "screwing"..???
No… he got a hummer. Good on ‘im, I say. > We’re still paying for it.
What, the witch hunt, or the hummer? > IMMHO, Bush will be remembered for *freeing* Afghanistan, and Iraq… > and actually DOING something about international terrorism, while > Clinton will be remembered for what he is remembered for now, a tawdry > sex-scandal.
I’d rather be remembered for staining Monica’s dress than reading a children’s book through 9/11… anyway, time will tell. > BTW – today, June 6th might be a good day for you to consider the > "costs" of this *war* against costs of previous wars/conflicts.
Why? The current situation bears *no* comparison to D Day *at all*… one could more profitably compare it to WWI, where Wilson lied to the country about our inevitable future involvement in the conflict. In fact, the case can be made for a comparison to Pearl Harbor, where it certainly falls within the realm of possibility that the attack was allowed to happen in order to polarize the populace (and save crypto intel). I don’t think you’ll find that many that really give a damn about Iraq… this was Bush’s pet war, plain and simple, and it *completely fucked up* the War On Terror. Europeans are our direct ancestors… Iraq just pissed off the wrong president. Now *we* pay. __ Steve read Clarke .
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Stephen Cowell, tied to the tracks, said: > … > No… read Clarke. Clinton was hindered by the military > and CIA reluctance to take personnel or publicity hits… > Oh, horse crap. > Poor, innocent, wimpy Bill > couldn’t blow his own nose, > it was all everyone else’s > fault. > But almighty George, he just > blows his nose and that signals > that millions of lackeys go > kill people. > You can’t have it both ways.
Sure I can… after all, what did W do before 9/11? *Less* than Clinton. Way less. One week before 9/11, W says "Iraq, Macedonia, very troubling…"… he couldn’t be given a clue. Bush reaped the benefit of 9/11… and completely, thoroughly squandered it. Read Clarke. __ Steve .
Response:
> Sure I can… after all, what did W do > before 9/11?
It was months after his election, the Senate had NOT yet approved his cabinet yet. One of the flaws in our system is that it takes the better part of a year for a new administration to get set-up. See ya, John
Response:
> Sure I can… after all, what did W do > before 9/11? > It was months after his election, the Senate had NOT yet approved his > cabinet yet. One of the flaws in our system is that it takes the better part > of a year for a new administration to get set-up.
Are you aware of the date of the Cole attack? Why the Bush foot dragging? Did he not see the danger? He was certainly *told* of the danger. "In January 2001, with the Florida fiasco behind us, I briefed each of my old friends and associates from the first Bush administration, Condi Rice, Steve Hadley, Dick Cheney, and Colin Powell. My message was stark: al Qaeda is at war with us, it is a highly capable organization, probably with sleeper cells in the U.S, and it is clearly planning a major series of atttacks against us; we must act decisively and quickly, deciding on the issues prepared after the attack on the Cole, going on the offensive." Clarke, pg 227. __ Steve .
Response:
mighty George is the one sucking face with the Saudi’s. It was a fraternity of Saudi who flew into the trade center. It was Bush makin deals on behalf of Unocal in Texas when he was governor. These guys all play hockey for various corporate donors. Sometimes they share donors and sometimes they play on opposite sides of the ice, it depends on what’s convenient. I don’t think Clinton was, ummm principled with regard to campaign favors (actually you could say he WAS principled – I mean he did his his job for those who paid him) but I think Bush is 10 times worse and far more dangerous because he "believes" rather than "thinks." And you can’t say that Bill killed more US soldiers in stupid wars than Bush. Bush wins hands down there. Suppose you look it this as power plays by varioius global companies and various families. I mean this literally. The Bush and Saudi Royal family have been working together for ages. Oil is almost but not quite thicker then blood. We will never get binLaden while Bush is president because we need the oil more than we need Osama and Osama serves as a useful propaganda rallying flag. Bush get’s what he needs, the Saudi’s get what they want. Also don’t forget how much of the US they actually own and how much we are in debt to them. And especially don’t forget how much the neo cons were praying for a disaster of this sort so that they could instigate theor plan to take over the world by "benevolent" force and install puppet democracies everywhere. As to Clinton and our Lady of Walmart. In bed with the Chinese since the first $300,000 campaign contribution. It really galls me that he sold himself so cheaply.
Response:
> Are you aware of the date of the Cole attack?
Of course, it`s one of those acts of war by Al Qaeda that others here have called criminal. There could have been a more vigorous response from the US, but the President in office at that time didn`t take heed of Clark`s admonition that Al Qaeda was at war with us. So it can be fairly said that the foot dragging had been on going. > Why the Bush foot dragging?
Our system of Government isn`t perfect, merely the best that I know of, and getting Cabinet officers, and senior advisors is an area that takes some time. As we have found of late, sometimes it becomes obvious that getting Senate approval is a political process and it takes some time. See ya, John
Response:
> Are you aware of the date of the Cole attack? > Of course, it`s one of those acts of war by Al Qaeda that others here have > called criminal. There could have been a more vigorous response from the US, > but the President in office at that time didn`t take heed of Clark`s > admonition that Al Qaeda was at war with us. So it can be fairly said that > the foot dragging had been on going.
"As in the case of Khobar and the East African embassy bombings, the FBI sent out a large team to collect evidence and interrogate witnesses. Ever the hands-on guy, John O’Neill led the team. He ran right into the US Ambassador I would least like to deal with under those circumstances, Barbara Bodine. O’Neill could charm a corpse, but he could not find a modus vivendi with the US Ambassador to Yemen. The Yemeni government also dragged its feet in the investigation, leading to President Clinton’s becoming personally involved. The US government left the Yemenis in no doubt about the two alternative paths that Yemeni-American relations could take. Meanwhile in Washingtone neither CIA nor FBI would state the obvious: al Qaeda did it. We knew there was a large al Qaeda cell in Yemen. There was also a large cell of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, but that group had now announced its complete merger into al Qaeda, so what difference did it make which group did the attack? Lisa Gordeon-Hagerty, Paul Kurtz, and Roger Cressey had worked around-the-clock pieceing together the evidence and had made a very credible case against al Qaeda. CIA would agree only months later." > Why the Bush foot dragging? > Our system of Government isn`t perfect, merely the best that I know of, and > getting Cabinet officers, and senior advisors is an area that takes some > time. As we have found of late, sometimes it becomes obvious that getting > Senate approval is a political process and it takes some time.
The problem was that the intel was ‘not made here’… it was tainted by being a product of the Clinton admin. Therefore, time had to pass, even though the plan would eventually be approved almost verbatim. Both Tenet and Clarke, pleading to loose the dogs against al Qaeda…. Bush saying "Iraq, Macedonia… very troublesome right now". Let History judge. __ Steve .
Response:
Related Posts