I would guess...

Post #150,867 by bepatient 4/12/04 2:03:42 PM Reply	I would guess... ...that in the intel business, a 3 year old quote would be considered historical. And specific actionable intel is notoriously lacking from the document. So you can remain intent on saying "they lied, they lied, SEE?" or realize that there is truth throughout and pray that this commission actually can do something to correct the situation. Because as it stands, the only thing I see going on is grandstanding, distortion and reading more between the lines than is actually there on the page. But, I shouldn't be surprised. It is our government in (in)action, after all. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #150,889 by mmoffitt 4/12/04 4:52:51 PM Reply	It's not the Commission's Responsibility, it's ours.
Post #150,893 by admin 4/12/04 5:10:01 PM Reply	It wasn't historical at the time... Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #150,895 by bepatient 4/12/04 5:36:30 PM Reply	It was over 3 yrs old at the time. In intel, that is definitely history. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #150,900 by admin 4/12/04 5:47:50 PM Reply	Re: It was over 3 yrs old at the time. The document also referred to an investigation into a report about possible attacks inside the U.S. received just three months before the briefing was written. The document was hardly "historical". Some portions of it, perhaps. The entire contents (and hence the document itself), no. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #150,901 by mmoffitt 4/12/04 5:50:20 PM Reply	The document itself is in my post. HTH. ;0)
Post #150,896 by mmoffitt 4/12/04 5:42:24 PM 4/12/04 5:46:53 PM Reply	None so blind as they that won't see. A clandestine source said in 1998 that a bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks. We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists. Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York. The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives. [link\|http://us.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/\|http://us.cnn.com/20.../10/august6.memo/] "Three years old" indeed... [Edit]: Go ahead Beep. Reply to that and tell me how we all wrongly read the last two paragraphs. Edited by mmoffitt April 12, 2004, 05:46:53 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #150,937 by bepatient 4/12/04 8:48:37 PM Reply	And so... ...with this "specific, actionable intel" the President orders all Federal Buildings in New York to have security quadrupled and all cars within 100 blocks are searched for explosives. And 19 men still board aircraft and crash them into 3 buildings that were not listed as potential targets. Also, the >>>>old<<<< information dictated that the threat of a hijacking was for HOSTAGE purposes, in order to trade for release of prisoners. Act on this stuff that you consider a smoking gun and you get what, exactly? Nothing. Your "aha" leaves no change in what happened. And your finger pointing solves nothing. All this memo proves is what has been said by all parties, all along. We didn't know shit. And we were too stupid to even know that we knew shit. And legal provisions that allow interdepartmental communication that may have given us a shot at solving this before it happened are on everyone's hit list. We are going to be extremely lucky to get away with never seeing hundreds of thousands killed or wounded in an attack, because we can't seem to figure out that its >this precise bullshit< that makes us susceptible. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #150,959 by mmoffitt 4/13/04 8:20:25 AM Reply	Nice duck. Since you avoided the question, is the document in question concerning "three year old" content (as you previously claimed) or not? Lemme guess, "It depends on the meaning of the word 'recent'" right?
Post #150,983 by bepatient 4/13/04 10:02:14 AM Reply	Go ahead. Read through it. 3 years prior they heard that maybe there would be hijackings. Now, !!Big News!!, we're investigating cells in the US that may be casing Fed buildings in NY to blow them up. (oh, you mean just like 1993 when they took the first shot at the WTC and they've been after them ever since) Why do I hear a little boys voice yelling about a wolf? Yep, some smoking gun. Put in a brief how many active investigations you have ongoing. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #150,990 by pwhysall 4/13/04 10:36:20 AM Reply	Can any of you clowns remember what you're arguing ABOUT? Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #150,996 by boxley 4/13/04 10:50:07 AM Reply	what does that have to do with anything :-) "You're just like me streak. You never left the free-fire zone.You think aspirins and meetings and cold showers are going to clean out your head. What you want is God's permission to paint the trees with the bad guys. That wont happen big mon." Clete questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #150,997 by bepatient 4/13/04 10:51:54 AM Reply	Oh, oh I am sorry,... ...but this is abuse. You want room 12A, Just along the corridor. ;-) If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,027 by mmoffitt 4/13/04 1:51:45 PM Reply	Here it is: It was over 3 yrs old at the time. Despite the sidestepping, no, the document did NOT refer to three year old data. But that is despite the fact when you're spreading the propaganda. I just decided to call him out this time on his blatant misrepresentation of what was contained in the memo.
Post #151,036 by bepatient 4/13/04 2:15:58 PM Reply	Re: Here it is: It was over 3 yrs old at the time. The briefing also said bin Laden had told followers in 1998 that "he wanted to retaliate in Washington" for a cruise missile strike on his camps in Afghanistan and that an operative said in 1998 that bin Laden wanted to "mount a terrorist strike" in the U.S. 2001-1998=3 sport. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,043 by mmoffitt 4/13/04 2:50:14 PM Reply	You're just jaggin' me again, aren't you? Again, from the document itself, not some one else's interpretation: FBI information *since that time* indicates...The FBI *is conducting...CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May*... "since that time", "is conducting" and "in May". As of August of the same year, this is all three years ago? That your point?
Post #151,046 by boxley 4/13/04 2:56:06 PM Reply	yeah and the feebs are still looking for hoffa :-) "You're just like me streak. You never left the free-fire zone.You think aspirins and meetings and cold showers are going to clean out your head. What you want is God's permission to paint the trees with the bad guys. That wont happen big mon." Clete questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #151,055 by jb4 4/13/04 5:01:36 PM Reply	<herring color=bright red>preceding post</herring> jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #151,098 by boxley 4/13/04 10:26:00 PM Reply	name one case that wasnt broken by a rat and remember we have no stable of arab rats. The feebs are good at organization and lae, they dont have either the mentality or training for counter terror. They have great serveilance but not translators. thanx, bill "You're just like me streak. You never left the free-fire zone.You think aspirins and meetings and cold showers are going to clean out your head. What you want is God's permission to paint the trees with the bad guys. That wont happen big mon." Clete questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #151,065 by bepatient 4/13/04 5:39:00 PM Reply	You seem to be serious. In thinking that, somehow, "current investigations" or a call in UAE are somehow mystical events that NEVER EVER HAPPEN so the fact that they are mentioned in this document is actually something to get excited about. We knew that there were cells in the US. We've known that for YEARS. I WOULD EXPECT THERE TO BE CURRENT INVESTIGATIONS ONGOING! I would expect these investigations to remain current until such time as the FBA and CIA could say with 100% assurity that all of the bad guys were gone. They had, on at least 2 occasions, struck pretty big on our soil already (though the gubmint seems to be sticking to the "acted alone" crap with the Murrah Building). None of your linked statements are "news". None of them are new information. Maybe to you they were. But maybe you think that someone saying "they're here" is big news. As someone who lives within a drive of NYC, to think 1993 had been forgotten to the point that there >weren't< active investigations into cells and radicals that we all know are there would have been the surprise to me...not the other way around. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,068 by mmoffitt 4/13/04 6:00:19 PM Reply	Even if I accept that, you must accept that ... a call received in May (3 months prior to the report being written) is most definitely not "3 year old information". You do see that, right? Or have you got that RW blindness thing?
Post #151,095 by bepatient 4/13/04 9:54:35 PM Reply	Certainly. Though without all briefings being made public, one will never know if that was actually >new< info. I'd venture that since the WH agreed to release the 8/6 brief that it had, indeed, been mentioned to the President prior to that date. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,101 by Silverlock 4/13/04 10:33:53 PM Reply	What was the title of the briefing? Eagerly awaiting another obfuscation. Let's get real. They screwed up. They got caught. They then lied about getting caught and then got caught lying about lying about getting caught. (removed incindiary text in the interest of discourse) Please start any response to this with the actual title of the briefing. ----------------------------------------- It is much harder to be a liberal than a conservative. Why? Because it is easier to give someone the finger than it is to give them a helping hand. Mike Royko
Post #151,128 by bepatient 4/14/04 7:19:15 AM Reply	Discourse on whose terms. The title if the document is something that we already knew. Al Queda determined to strike in the US. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,134 by mmoffitt 4/14/04 8:22:44 AM Reply	If all the briefings were release, or even the full text ... of this one, I think the cries of condemnation would be even louder than they are right now. As some one noted above, the part of the 8/6 PDB that was released was a small part of it. And, arguably, the part that made the administration look the best. Which speaks volumes to how bad this administration would look in the full light of day. My argument with you to this point, as you know, is that you initially said the document contained three year old, "historical" information. While it is certainly true that some historical background was in that document, it is also certainly true (as you now concede) that not all the information in the document was of an "historical" nature - as Ms. Rice had claimed in her sworn testimony. So, Ms. Rice did, in fact, lie under oath. qed.
Post #151,138 by bepatient 4/14/04 10:02:58 AM Reply	Nope, sorry, try again. You cannot judge it as current or historical unless you can prove that the President had not been advised of that UAE call in a previous briefing. If he had been briefed on it, then it indeed, though only 3 months old, was actually historic information. That was the point that you missed. The other one you continue to miss is imbedded in your statement. If more gets released you will just pidgeon that into your preconceived nest of all other failings of >this< administration. Absolving the failings of 20 years of government (or longer) by blaming the guy with less than a year at the helm. We had the man in crosshairs. Polls would have been unfavorable. So we didn't shoot, choosing instead to pelt the desert and an aspirin factory. Pointing that out to you is conidered "passing the buck" or "missing the point". Where was the "number one priority" then? In the exact place it was up until 9/11. Until you get >that< you will remain part of the problem and not part of the solution. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,149 by GBert 4/14/04 11:41:51 AM Reply	Just two cents... One damning aspect of the brief for me is this. Why, after seven months of trying to focus the President's attention on al Qaeda as an imminent threat, does the man still need historical info? He should be clamoring for the latest intel, asking every principal for their latest action reports, NOT still in the dark and in need of "so who is this guy again and why should I care?" info. Giovanni I'm not a complete idiot -- some parts are missing
Post #151,153 by mmoffitt 4/14/04 12:36:57 PM Reply	Well, at least you dropped the "3 year old" bit. <sigh>
Post #151,179 by bepatient 4/14/04 5:02:49 PM Reply	Point fingers all you like. It seems to make y'all feel better to believe one person at fault as opposed to understanding the reality that the problem is systemic. sigh yourself. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,181 by mmoffitt 4/14/04 5:12:14 PM Reply	Where'd I say that? It seems to make y'all feel better to believe one person at fault as opposed to understanding the reality that the problem is systemic. This started when you defended the outright lie Ms. Rice told during her sworn testimony. She said the document only contained old information of an historical nature. That is clearly false, and you admitted as much. By no one standards is "current events" historical in nature. Feh!
Post #151,191 by bepatient 4/14/04 8:38:22 PM Reply	No I didn't admit that. You have inferred it and done so without any basis for the determination. 3 months old or 3 years old are both "historic information" if they have been reported on prior to that document. Since you have no information to prove that one way or the other, you prefer to simply say "she's lying". That is based on your preconceptions, not on fact...as much as you would like to believe that all of these "facts" flying around are actually facts, which they aren't. Lovin that spin I'm in...gimme that old black magic... If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,218 by pwhysall 4/15/04 1:48:15 AM Reply	Can we cut to the chase? <bepatient> You're a poopy-head! <mmoffitt> No, you are! <bepatient> neener! neener! You've got cooties! <mmoffitt> At least I don't smell of poo ... Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #151,226 by bepatient 4/15/04 2:51:02 AM Reply	Shall I quote more Python? If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,227 by pwhysall 4/15/04 7:05:54 AM Reply	Please do It would be more enlightening than the current debate :-) Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #151,236 by mmoffitt 4/15/04 9:55:04 AM Reply	Right. What was I thinking? Since when is "truth" important in American Politics? In short, "Current Events" != "History"
Post #151,261 by bepatient 4/15/04 1:29:05 PM Reply	Never mind. Cannot comprehend that today's historical reference can be something discussed previously. Like yesterday. To fine a point anyway for someone interested in painting with a very wide brush. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,262 by jb4 4/15/04 2:00:34 PM Reply	And 2 == 1, for very large values of 1________:-\ufffd jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #151,263 by mmoffitt 4/15/04 2:01:53 PM Reply	:-D
Post #151,266 by Silverlock 4/15/04 2:39:19 PM Reply	It finally makes sense. Historical is anything older than now. ----------------------------------------- It is much harder to be a liberal than a conservative. Why? Because it is easier to give someone the finger than it is to give them a helping hand. Mike Royko
Post #151,267 by boxley 4/15/04 2:41:47 PM Reply	check out tom tommorow for the definitions Its bad to look in the past unless the past is before 4 years ago. Its bad to look at the future because unexpected things happen it best to mind your business and look at the now or else you are unpatriotic :-) thanx, bill "You're just like me streak. You never left the free-fire zone.You think aspirins and meetings and cold showers are going to clean out your head. What you want is God's permission to paint the trees with the bad guys. That wont happen big mon." Clete questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #151,279 by mmoffitt 4/15/04 4:48:53 PM Reply	That's an ancient remark. Historical begins when you press <Enter>
Post #151,029 by mmoffitt 4/13/04 1:56:21 PM Reply	You READ IT. HELLS BELLS, MAN! I EVEN BOLDED THE OPERATIVE PART FOR YOU!!! YOU STILL DON'T SEE IT??????????????? FFFFFFFFFFFFFBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG.

Welcome to IWETHEY!