Impeach Bush?

[The Blowhard]

WASHINGTON - Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said Thursday that "additional examination of the facts in broader forms" is needed to determine whether the Bush administration failed to adequately protect the public from the Sept. 11 terror attacks.


"I think once we get beyond the intelligence committee there are now issues that fall outside of intelligence that somebody is going to have to examine, that somebody I think for the public record is going to have to try to clarify, and so I think the issue has become one that will clearly involve other committees besides the intelligence committees today and perhaps even beyond committees themselves."

The Democratic leader's remarks were made in response to the discovery that the FBI's Phoenix office had written a memo in July to FBI headquarters, informing the agency that Arabs linked to Al Qaeda were receiving flight instruction.

The White House repeated Thursday that it did not get any warnings that could have been used to predict the events of Sept. 11.

"The president did not - not - receive information about the use of airplanes as missiles by suicide bombers. This was a new type of attack that was not foreseen," White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said. "The president received information about hijackings of airplanes, and Usama bin Laden. That's what he received."

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee with jurisdiction over the FBI, has requested that the Justice Dept. investigate FBI failures to respond to warnings of threats against the United States.

"[T]he recent revelations about this memo and other apparent missteps have put the FBI's credibility at risk," Grassley wrote in a letter to Inspector General Glenn Fine Wednesday. "I ask that your review include how this warning came about, which FBI officials were aware of it, when the warning was provided to them, what actions were taken or not taken and why, along with any other relevant lessons to be learned," he wrote.



<img src=http://home.ix.netcom.com/~camman/_uimages/Heckler.gif>
"I can see clearly now, the brain is gone."

[A.J.]

Absolutely -- let's do! But only if Clinton is called to testify why nothing was done after the 1993 WTC attack, the 1995 Khobar Towers bombing, the 1998 Embassy bombings in Africa, and the bombing of USS COLE in 2000.

All these hearings will prove that this memo got lost in the shuffle of a bloated, inept bureacracy. God forbid we reduce the size of government. Look at the efficiency of the INS.

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

[ChrisTheCop]

Amen AJ! It's hard to place the blame of September 11th on any but the bastards who did it and those who had them do it. However, if Americans insist on blaming the government, Clinton should definately take the hit. In addition to AJ's comments, the Clinton administration is responsible for downsizing physical infiltration of foreign adversaries, organizations, and governments...in other words, he got rid of spies. By doing so, we missed out on 8 friggin years of intelligence, which indeed may have prevented not only the events of 9-11, but also the embassy and USS Cole bombings. We shouldve impeached him when we had the chance. He's a disgrace.

<img src="http://christhecop.50megs.com/images/ronfez_cartoon--christhecop.gif">

This message was edited by ChrisTheCop on 5-16-02 @ 1:40 PM

[A.J.]

, the Clinton administration is responsible for downsizing physical infiltration of foreign adversaries, organizations, and governments...in


Thanks Chris but to be fair, the Intel community started relying more and more on spy satellites from the 80s because 1) it was cheaper than HUMINT 2) the technology had markedly improved and 3) there was no "clear and present danger" to the mainland U.S.

Having said that, Clinton didn't make the effort that should have been made following each of the examples I cited above. Instead, he was obessed with getting a Nobel Peace prize to enhance his "legacy".

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

[sunndoggy8]

There are numerous threats against the US in regards to hijacking and whatnot, so the fact that they overlooked this one isn't all that surprising...again, no one could have ever expected what happened to actually happen that day, so it's pretty unfair to try and blame the Bush admin. for it because of some random threat they heard about.
It's the same as trying to blame the Clinton admin for what they did in the 90's. It's basically unfair to say, oh this could have been prevented if we did this or that...no one could have forseen Sept. 11th happening.

But it's natural for people to want to lash out and blame someone...but as someone just said, it's unfair, because you could pass blame on just about everyone you could come up with.

And finally, I don't think Clinton was simply goofing off with his hopes for peace in the Middle East. Whatever his intentions were, at least he made more of an effort than any other president before or after him. You can't deny that.


<IMG SRC="http://home.att.net/~sunndoggy8/sunnysig1.jpg" width=300 height=80>

<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">

[sunndoggy8]

And furthermore, this is why the news media drives me mad. There are so many more important things to report on...such as the war in afganistan(yes it's still going on), the middle east conflict, the india/pakistan conflict, the us mail bombings, and about a dozen other more important stories. It's ridiculous that the main media outlets have nothing better to do than bash the present admin...

<IMG SRC="http://home.att.net/~sunndoggy8/sunnysig1.jpg" width=300 height=80>

<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">

[A.J.]

And finally, I don't think Clinton was simply goofing off with his hopes for peace in the Middle East. Whatever his intentions were, at least he made more of an effort than any other president before or after him. You can't deny that.


Jimmy Carter? George H.W. Bush?



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

[Pootertoot]

the india/pakistan conflict


If they kill each other, who cares?

What we need to be concerned with is evacuation of those cows they treat like royalty. Imagine how tasty that beef will be...better than that kobe beef everyone raves about.

<embed src="http://hometown.aol.com/slfcallednowhere/mario2.swf" width=300 height=100>
Censored, Because I'm a Responsible Moderator, who fucks children in the ass.

[A.J.]

True but if India and Pakistan destroy each other it will probably be from nuking each other. Then the cows, assuming any were alive, would be irradiated.

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

[dicAMan]

the democrats are just playing politics because all the other negative issues they tried to pull out before the election hasen't worked, so now they are blameing bush for the attacks. They really make me sick they can't get over the fact that bush has a high approval rating. I'm not saying both sides don't go negative but they way and the issues the democrats use makes me wanna vomit.

Fact: A cat will always blink when hit on the head with a hammer. Thats a fact.

This message was edited by dicAMan on 5-16-02 @ 4:38 PM

[A.J.]

I'm not saying both sides don't go negative but they way and the issues the democrats use makes me wanna vomit.


Case in point: the uproar over this "Bush 9-11 photo" the Republicans are selling as a fund raiser. The picture in question is a picture of Bush on the phone just after the attacks.

The gall! A picture of the President on the phone! That ranks up there with selling off weekend stays in the Lincoln Bedroom!

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

[ChrisTheCop]

Lets just hope that in 2002, Americans as a whole aren't as gullible as New Yorkers. I wake up every day and rush to the newspaper, hoping that a Clinton isn't really still in office. She makes my skin crawl.

<img src="http://christhecop.50megs.com/images/ronfez_cartoon--christhecop.gif">

[Captain Rooster]

Democrats are pulling at straws at this point and Tom Daschle is their head whore trying to stir support for a party that is kown more for a president that left cum stains on a chick's dress than they are for policy.

Republicans win wars - Democrats just start them!


<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/roosterclawsanime.gif>

"You must chill! You must chill! I have hidden your keys! Chill!"
-- Lloyd Dobbler


This message was edited by LTRooster on 5-16-02 @ 5:23 PM

[42nd-delay]

Clearly, if we're going to impeach Bush it should be over Enron.

------------------------------
42nd-delay

"42nd-delay is the only person who's making sense." - Ron, 3-12-02

<img src = "http://www.krikordaglian.com/images/superbowl_sig.jpg">
<p><b>Now playing in the Entertainment forum - Murder at the Super Bowl: the Trailer!</b><br>
<a href = "http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=80&Topic=8046">Click here to see it!</a>

[Yerdaddy]

Warning: another of my Cliff Claven-esque rants. Proceed at your own risk.

It can't be shown yet that the 9-11 attacks could have been prevented or predicted by the Bush or Clinton administrations. What bothers me is that we're just now hearing that there were some warning signs about Al Quaeda and plane hijackings and yet Congress passed up several opportunities to improve the system of airport security. They caved in to lobbying by the airline industry that didn't want to give up the lucrative contracts for security while maintaining it's system of minimum wage security personnel and resisting expensive baggage checking technology.

The thing I hate most about Bush is his love of secrecy. He's blocked implementation of a law requiring the release of presidential papers to protect his Uncle Ronny, Daddy and himself from public scrutiny of their times in office. He's undermined the GAO, an important, nonpartisan arm of Congressional oversight, in order to prevent public knowledge of the influence of energy companies on his "energy policy." Since 9-11 he's encouraged the public to buy his version of "good vs. evil" and not to publicly debate the various issues that 9-11 brought up. He believes that the American public should be seen and not heard, and I think that is counter to the principles of participatory democracy that is the source of the strength of this country.

It also means that there will be more information to come about what the Bush administration knew and didn't know. I doubt it will prove that the 9-11 hijackers could have rounded up because we have to assume that warnings about attacks are routinely appearing and that terrorist attacks have been prevented by the intelligence community, (ie. Y2K attackers stopped at the Canadian border). But what will remain in question is what could have been done to protect the American public institutionally, such as improved airport security, but wasn't done because of a reluctance of any recent president to interfere with corporate pursuit of profits. If you've ever been to Europe the difference between security there and in America is obvious. In Paris, at airports and train stations, military personnel with machine guns and drug and bomb-sniffing dogs are a constant presence. European and Israeli security experts have been criticizing our security procedures for years, including testifying to it before Congress. But in the US, government is seen as doing everything poorly and the "free market" can always do everything better. So politicians find it easier to protect corporations than the public.

The "free market", which is sacred to the Bush administration, (and to a lesser degree, Clinton's), does many things well, but many things poorly. It means that when things like public health and safety conflict with profits, the public is often not served. If the government had had responsibility for airport security, the public would have had access to information about, and influence over how security was implemented. It's called oversight. As it was, the airlines don't have to divulge most information about their operations. Instead, they lobbied intensely against government oversight of airline security, co-opted the FAA by putting industry executives in the FAA's leadership positions, and, as usual, cried bankruptcy at the mention of improved security. The private sector's primary function is to make money. The government's primary function is to protect the public. It's not a question of who does things better, but what things are in the public interest to have government take responsibility for. This issue is more about this principle than about Democrat-Republican bickering.

Hypothetically, if the public had been made aware of the threat of hijackings by al-Quaeda, Congress may not have been able to vote down the various bills that had been submitted to improve airport security. I see Bush's failure to act on the warnings as a missed opportunity to establish security measures that may have prevented the 9-11 attacks.


<img src="http://yerdaddy.ho

[Cybersoldier]

What kind of F**king president sits on his ass with information that will save lives. After enron and now this bomb shell impeachement is just a investigation and a few votes away

<IMG SRC="http://www.geocities.com/cybersoldier_omgea/cybersoldier.gif">
thanks cheezeemee for the sig

[wilee]

I know it's cliche' but "Hindsight is 20/20"

When you have the benefit of the actual event that transpired, you can point out the "indications" that would show what was going to happen- a memo here, some security check there, but when all these things stand by their lonesome without somehow being linked together, they stand as isolated incidents.

If you were told members of Al-Qeda were taking flight instruction, where is the logical line you draw from that to flying the plane into a building (before 9-11 obviously)? My thought is that they would hijack the plane and fly it somewhere themselves to take hostages- not fly it into the WTC, the Pentagon or some other building/city.

We've heard about hostage situations on planes lots of times, and this "revelation" about the FBI knowing about an Al-Qeda connection to flight training probably got the same attention all other hostage situations got.



<IMG SRC="http://cwjr.home.infi.net/rocket.jpg">

[A.J.]

Lets just hope that in 2002, Americans as a whole aren't as gullible as New Yorkers. I wake up every day and rush to the newspaper, hoping that a Clinton isn't really still in office. She makes my skin crawl.


Thank all the non-voters in upstate NY for that. It's the same reason why Chucky Schumer beat D'Amato a couple of years ago.

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

[A.J.]

So 11 September is Bush's fault?
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/18/inv.hijacking.philippines/index.html

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

[A.J.]

And?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33312-2002May17.html

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

[Michael Fury]

Nobody could predict what happened. Pre-9/11 mentality would not have stood for better screening at airports, because it would have slowed air travel down.

The blame game is sick & twisted. Tom Clancy also wrote about taking a plane & flying it into the Capitol. Why not blame him because he knew something like that could happen and didn't stop it.

[A.J.]

Tom Clancy also wrote about taking a plane & flying it into the Capitol


You're right and nobody ever mentions that. The scenario was that it took place during a State of the Union speech.

Personally, I think that is where the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania was heading. Had it reached the Capitol, most of the members of Congress would have been killed and the Capitol building destroyed.

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

This message was edited by AJinDC on 5-17-02 @ 2:55 PM

[Knowledged_one]

This is f'n ridiculous impeach him for what, he has commited no crime against the people or lied to them in anyway. Do you honestly believe Bush was willing to sacrifice all those lives for the sake of a war on terrorism? To place the blame on bush is like the parents of columbine suing the hollywood industry for making violent movies.
This seems to me like just another way for someone to pass the blame onto someone else. How quickly Daschle forgets standing with Republicans donating blood and pledging unity and togetherness, but now that it is not fresh in peoples minds they resort to defaming Bush on political motives, because as many know Democrats are upset that Republicans are selling a pic of Bush from that 9/11.
And if clinton had bothered to do more then send a cruise missile into terrorist camps after each bombing against us some of this would have been stopped

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

[Trainspotting]

If you look at some of the info. from www.copvcia.com (although I try take things with a grain of salt and have some health skepticism even if info. is reliable) there's a case for foreknowledge of what happened or at the very least the government could have done something to stop what happened. Bin laden on September 10th was in a Pakistani(the Pakistanis are close allies of central intelligence) hospital for a kidney problem. In July he was in a hospital(next to the US Embassy) in Dubai for the same condition and a cia guy bragged about meeting him.
Bin Laden was already known to be a terrorist
Bush got numerous warning from the Russians, Israelis, and the Germans. Yet nothing was done. Mohammed Atta received $100,000 in August 2001from a general in the Pakistani ISI inwhich works very closely with the CIA.I'm not saying there's a conspiracy, yet there's just some disturbing info. that doesn't sit well. If there's a reasonable explanation for these things then case closed

See ya!
Trainspotting