65 replies [Last post]
SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1817
I read, with interest, about Jesse Jacson
expatriate wrote:
Wow -- that sounds really incriminating except for one little detail -- the date the Phoenix Memo became such a media item. It was after 9/11, not before.

Do you have any idea how many reports are generated by FBI field agents on any given day? And they don't go straight to the President's desk, either -- they go into a huge intel system that filters and sorts it all. That's the problem with intelligence -- the tidbits of truth are buried in mountains of rumor, speculation, and untruths. It's easy to pick out those nuggets of truth after the fact, but not so easy beforehand.

The comparison to Pearl Harbor is more relevant than you think. Actually, there was far more intelligence warning ahead of Pearl Harbor, and there were (and still are) arguments that FDR ignored warnings and allowed it to happen in order to galvanize the nation and get us involved in WWII. I disagree with that notion for the same reason I discount the Bush theory. Anyone can predict the past -- the challenge is to predict the future.

Expat, the fact remains that the DIB regarding possible planes to be used for terrorist attacks was given in Aug to Bush.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
I read, with interest, about Jesse Jacson

Along with what? What other intelligence did he receive that day/week/month? And what actions did the FBI take to verify the claim? If the FBI has credible threats, it doesn't sit around waiting for the President to tell them what to do. The question is what actionable intel was available at the time, and what actions could be taken within the confines of the law. For example, it's not like anyone had the authority to tap the phones of everyone in flight training in the US based on a field report that didn't specify anyone.

You can't look back at the intel with hindsight and say they should've known to do this or that, because you have to consider the intel in the context of the time it was discovered. There were no doubt rumors flying around about groups wanting to attack federal buildings back in '95, but that doesn't mean Oklahoma City was Clinton's fault.

SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1817
I read, with interest, about Jesse Jacson
expatriate wrote:
Along with what? What other intelligence did he receive that day/week/month? And what actions did the FBI take to verify the claim? If the FBI has credible threats, it doesn't sit around waiting for the President to tell them what to do. The question is what actionable intel was available at the time, and what actions could be taken within the confines of the law. For example, it's not like anyone had the authority to tap the phones of everyone in flight training in the US based on a field report that didn't specify anyone.

You can't look back at the intel with hindsight and say they should've known to do this or that, because you have to consider the intel in the context of the time it was discovered. There were no doubt rumors flying around about groups wanting to attack federal buildings back in '95, but that doesn't mean Oklahoma City was Clinton's fault.

expat, we'll have to agree to disagree (and just when we found common ground on that other thread).

If they receive a briefing that terrorists linked to Al Qaeda planned on using aircraft to implement attacks and lo and behold a month later the worst ever terrorist attack was staged using aircraft somebody dropped the ball.... big time!

But, rumors of 'shadowy meetings' in Europe and 'yellow cake' in Niger were more then adequate intelligence to launch an attack on another country.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
I read, with interest, about Jesse Jacson

Uh...you're forgetting one thing: the 550 tons of yellow cake we just sent to Canada from Iraq at Iraq's request -- originally from the Tuwaitha research facility that was the subject of so much scrutiny prior to the war. Our troops found it there in '03 -- funny how the press never covered it, and when it went public recently they stayed away from it like it was...well...radioactive.

So much for lying.

http://www.metimes.com/Politics/2008/07/07/iraqi_uranium_transferred_to_...

SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1817
I read, with interest, about Jesse Jacson
expatriate wrote:
Uh...you're forgetting one thing: the 550 tons of yellow cake we just sent to Canada from Iraq at Iraq's request -- originally from the Tuwaitha research facility that was the subject of so much scrutiny prior to the war. Our troops found it there in '03 -- funny how the press never covered it, and when it went public recently they stayed away from it like it was...well...radioactive.

So much for lying.

http://www.metimes.com/Politics/2008/07/07/iraqi_uranium_transferred_to_canada/afp/

Iraq had an active nuclear research program in the 70s and 80s. That's not exactly a secret. Israel bombed the (very primitive) reactors as early as 1981. Yellowcake is extremely easy to make. You just dig it up and have a chemist crudely process it at the ore to yield mainly uranium oxide. That's something any country can do.

We all knew he had this pile of yellowcake. We also all knew that his nuclear program was unsuccessful and that he wouldn't be able to enrich it for a regular reactor (let alone weapon-grade!) anytime soon. UN inspectors found these back in the days of the 1st Gulf War, tagged it all and left it in some hangar.

To refresh your memories, there has never been mention of this yellowcake by the White House prior to the invasion. There was, however, plenty of talk about Saddam buying uranium from Niger. Turned out to be concocted evidence that gullible and/or unethical journalists fell for.

So much for not being forthcoming.

Related Forum Threads You Might Like