Skip to comments.Peter King: Current NSA surveillance programs might have prevented 9/11
Posted on 06/20/2013 8:16:10 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
click here to read article
My first thought as well.
An intelligent attitude about the dangers of Islam, Islamic immigrants, and Muslims in general would go a long way towards stopping terrorism in the US, but it doesn’t give the left broad headway to harass its political enemies, like veterans, patriots, tea party members, conservatives, gun owners, and people who aren’t on welfare, especially white people, and more specifically, white people with Irish heritage, and all white women who are having white babies. All the spying, invasion of privacy, criminal extortion by threat of government action, harassment and intimidation is because of the war for social justice and multiculturalism, not because of the war on terror.
What do you need clarified.
You agree under Bush terrorist attacks were stopped.
Under Obama they can’t be stopped.
Why would that be.
Here’s a thought.
Maybe the terrorist are carrying out a their terrorist attacks without any planning, it’s “spontaneous”, so there is no time to pick up on what they are doing.
Does that sound reasonable as to why the Obama adm can’t stop the attacks?
...or the Times Square Recruiting Office bomber...or the Times Square car bomber...or the underwear bomber...or Hassan...or.......
Throw 'em a curve and mention Able Danger.
Ooops...I see you did.
I think rank idiocy under the Obama Admin, such as declaring mosques off limits to FBI investigation while profiling Tea Partiers as potential terrorists, is explanation enough. You usually don’t find something if you are not looking for it.
Thank you for pointing out this simple reality. We could have relative security without perverting our constitutional guarantees and traditions of individual freedom and privacy by simply enforcing our borders. Unfortunately, the desire for new voters and cheap labor, along with misguided compassion have resulted in a coalition of interest that prevents sane policies.
Personally I believe you are confusing idiocy with intent.
You want to write it off to idiocy you go right ahead.
I don’t write it off to idiocy.
I believe their intent was so the terrorist attacks wouldn’t be stopped and they are now trying to created some defense to explain it.
I believe that’s exactly why they came up with the “spontaneous” lie. That being there is little or no planning for the attacks so there is no way to pick up on what the terrorist are up to before the attack takes place.
For a politician’s “might have prevented” we should forfeit our civil liberties.
I wouldn’t do that for an ironclad written, signed-in-blood, notarized by God Himself promise from a politician, the lowest form of liar we know.
No, no, no. It didn’t matter what we “knew,” the Clinton Law Enforcement model would have prevented any effective countermeasures.
A conversation I had with Cofer Black in 2009 confirmed to me that the Bush admin knew an attack was coming, but the details were so sensational (airplanes flying into buildings) nobody believed it.
I think that is butt-covering for not catching them when the bread crumbs were laid out for them by the Russians.
I might agree with you if it was the first and only time, but it wasn’t.
The subway bombing in 2009 was stopped but only after Air Force 1 flew over NYC as if warning everyone there was a terrorist attack and then the Brits warned Obama about the attack.
Fort Hood shooter, didn’t stop it even though there was plenty of warnings.
Underwear bomber, didn’t stop it even though his father gave them warnings.
Failed car bomb in NYC, didn’t stop it, in fact started a talking points campaign to blame the TEA Party before the attack.
At some point you will have to admit it’s not incompetence but intentional.
I reached that point a long time ago.
When I click on the second link you provided, then try to connect to the NY Post to read the entire article, I get a "page not found" error. Therefore, I can't comment on that article.
As to the first, it takes me to a list of articles. I presume you wanted me to read the one entitled "Did We Know About Mohammed Atta?".
After reading that article, I found no new revelations. Of course we knew about him. We know names of lots of terrorists. That's a far cry from claiming we knew he was going to fly planes into buildings, let alone knowing what date it was planned
So yes, as I stated, the government had vague information. I still don't see where they had anything specific enough to have been able to stop 9/11. A name doesn't doesn't get you there.
Yes, I was aware that there was a "wall" between the various agencies that kept them from sharing information. So that might explain why they didn't know. But it wouldn't provide any proof that they did know.
As I recall, Bush stated that this "wall" may have been what prevented them from putting the pieces together before 9/11, and he instituted some changes to increase the communications between agencies.
They Did know. Why I wanted you to look it up was because the articles about the wall showed information they did have. It was all there, it could have been stopped the attack and it was obtained without violation of the Constitution.
When government screws up and something bad happens the government’s solution is to pass another law to punish the victims, the innocent, or the bystanders.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.