The only thing you need to know about the 911 hearings

The Democratic position is that the Republican administration was not hawkish enough.

<strike>hawkish</strike>engaged

Originally posted by Undertoad
The Democratic position is that the Republican administration was not hawkish enough.

In the meantime, thinkers are looking at the White House Commission on terrorism, that never met for seven months, never submitted any reports - all the while intelligence briefing repeatedly warned of a problem - specifically Osama bin Laden by name.

Intelligent thinkers noted how this administration was still so entrenched in a Cold War mentality as to promote another Stars Wars program - and not even consider the possibility of terrorism. They still considered Russia as a potential threat - which is the real reason for a useless and flawed anti-ballistic missile system.

Intelligent thinkers expose extremists (people of low intelligence) when the problem is broken down into what Republicans and Democrats say. The problem is really about White House competance. A serious problem because so many long time insiders are saying the same thing.

Paul O'Neill discussed this George Jr administration misdirected energies. Richard Clarke is quite blunt about these facts. The retired Joint Cheif of Staff - Gen Newbold - is saying this administration would intentionally misrepresent or misconstrue - repeatedly - intelligence reports as proof that we must invade Iraq. Newbold -of the Joint Chiefs in that period - says he could find no justification for their reasonings. But then the George Jr administration - the vulcans - are the same people who advocated even an invasion of Germany, Russia, or India if necessary to keep the US the #1 power. They first have an agenda. Only then learn facts to justify that agenda.

This from one who has little respect for traditional Democrats, Republicans, and those who would confuse issues accordingly. The administration lied even about those aluminum tubes. That lies was so bad as to be obvious even back then - if one is a thinker rather than a worshipper of George Jr. This administration intentionally outed a CIA spy only to seek revenge - and where is that investigation? This administration even advocated an unjustified attack on a sovereign nation without even a declaration of war - just like Japan did in Pearl Harbor.

A most interesting fact about the Richard Clarke book - the administration had the full copy last November for review. The administration had full control of when this book could be released. They had this book as required by law. Interesting question. Why did this administration permit this book to be released at this time? Then were totally blindsided by its facts?

Furthermore, if the Richard Clarke book was so wrong, then why is virtually everyone in this administration in such as tizzy? Unpresidented. Even Dr Rice is publically speaking - but cannot talke to the 911 Commission. Only criminals would fear to testify. Did they actually only discover how wrong they were afgter they got public feedback? Did they actually think they had done no wrong when they permitted the book release? Apparently so.

The 911 Commission exposes how pig headed, and what outright liars so many in the George Jr administration really are. There was no looting in Iraq. Rumsfeld still maintains the widespread looting did not exist. How long will they live in this fairyland world - and how many killed and delimbed Americans will result? That is what this 911 Commission is about - which is why the administration fears, obstructs, and fights the Commission - just like Nixon did in Watergate.

Iraq's WMD are as are really honest as this administration and those who support this administration's Nixon-like lies. Its not just Richard Clarke. So many public servants with 20 and 30 years experience are reporting similar stories. In each case, its about an administration that will lie, if necessary, to achieve their pre-conceived agendas. But then these are also the people who promoted and praised Ken Starr.

Isn't one of the main sticking points whether we could have offed bin Laden and decided not to?

Originally posted by Undertoad
Isn't one of the main sticking points whether we could have offed bin Laden and decided not to?

The main sticking point is that the George Jr administration completely avoided the bin Laden issue all together.

I believe it was Albright who noted how many terrorists were caught at the border. Administration top people met almost weekly on the problem. So a border guard just happened to discover the car on the WA / Canadian border? No. Border guards were warned to look for such people. A terrorist so mentally weak that, when the border guard started being the bit little suspicious, terrrorist tried to run back into Canada. Terrorism avoided because top management took those CIA, et al warning seriously.

How many times did the George Jr administration's terrorism commission meet in 7 months? Once - only days before the WTC was attacked. George Jr was too busy looking for threats from Iraq, Iran, and N Korea. By this time, we were already attacking Iraqi targets in the no fly zone - then blaming the attacks on Iraqi defenders. George Jr was already starting the softening up for a war in Iraq - before the WTC came down. He was busy trying to eliminate the anti-ballistic missile treaty so that he could build a star wars system (while comedian George Carlin accurately describes a terrorist attack on NYC from a row boat).

Clinton administration is not without blame. But the Clinton people acknowledge their failures. George Jr people are so belligerent as to have tried to stifle this 911 commission from the very begining. That is testimony right from the widows who had to personally lobby to get this commission. The 911 commission threatened to resign - every one - Democrat and Republican - because the George Jr administration refused to provide documents. Even Connie Rice absolutely refused to tesitfy even though she routinely appeared on talk shows from ABC's This Week with George Stephenopolious to Fox News.

The 911 Commission is about learning why this happened. Those widows are really asking for honest answers that we should have had on 11 September 2002. It now appears box cutters were not used on the planes. Only uncovered because this commission asked questions. Widows are even asking why the president was running and hiding when he should have been leading. Who was acutally making desicisons. Why there were no armed planes for the protection of Washington even 5 years after Clancy's fiction book made the threat painfully obvious (because all air defenses were trained on a surprise attack from overseas). When stewardess on flight 11 reported the hijacking to her superiors, what did the airline do? Did she really tell them what the hijackers objectives were to be? If so, then what happened to that information? Why after the first WTC attack, did George Jr still get off of Air Force One and visit an elementary school? And why was there not even air cover for Air Force One well after the second WTC attack? These and many other questions were asked. The widows were told the equivalent of "You don't need to know". That is what Dr Rice even told them by her actions - of refusing to testify before the commission. That is why the widows paraded out of the hearings - and for good reason to specifically protest Dr Rice - who more than anyone else should have seen this WTC attack coming. Even John O'Neill - this nation's number one terrorist investigator resigned in disgust because this administration did not want to investigate terrorism. More questions we should have answered.

Why were FBI agents in three cities told they could not investigate what we now know were the WTC attackers? Why are these question still not answered:
Family Steering Committee for The 9/11 Independent Commission

And why did the George Jr administration obstruct the creation of this investigation for something like one year and one month? Some of these questions may be beyond the scope of a 911 investigation. But there are still so many questions - mostly from the George Jr administration that are not being answered - using political foot dragging. Look at some of those Steering Committee questions that really should have long been answered.

A million questions why, but you immediately scoff at the idea that it was anything other than a plane. Amazing. So eager to believe, yet so many questions you say you want answered. I wonder if people really want answers, or if they want something to believe that makes things look better than they really are.

Quzah.

Originally posted by tw
But then the George Jr administration - the vulcans - are the same people who advocated even an invasion of Germany, Russia, or India if necessary to keep the US the #1 power.

Why vulcans? I've only heard this term applied to them once before, and I think it was you.

This is politics as usual in the two party state. Neither party trusts the American people enough to be straight with them about threats or our ability to gage them. Now it's CYA time for two administrations and the party adherents will believe what they are told to believe.

Quz, we dealt with that on the other thread and you didn't get any smarter. The only way your little pet theory can stand in your brain is if you just ignore us. Not sure why you want to be here if you are ignoring us.

quzah is trying to enlighten us. After all, We ARE a bunch of inbred arses with very little independent thought. :haha:

tw,

Rich Lowry details Richard Clarke's contradictions

In his 2002 briefing, Clarke said that the Bush administration decided in "mid-January" 2001 to continue with existing Clinton policy while deciding whether or not to pursue more aggressive ideas that had been rejected throughout the Clinton administration. Nowhere does this appear in his book.

He said in 2002 that the Bush administration had decided in principle in the spring of 2001 "to increase CIA resources . . . for covert action, five-fold, to go after al Qaeda." Nowhere is this mentioned in his book.

In 2002, Clarke emphasized that the Bush team "changed the strategy from one of rollback with al Qaeda over the course [of] five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda." This is mentioned in his book, but - amazingly - as an afterthought.

Clarke says Condi Rice appeared as if she hadn't heard of al Qaeda before he mentioned it to her in early 2001. No. Rice made public statements in late 2000 noting the threat from bin Laden.

Dang man, you're the smoking gun!

I get so tired of spin...gotten to the point I don't trust ANY public figure.

Was he merely parroting talking points given to him by the Bush team? That's the explanation he offered at yesterday's hearing. But he can't get off the hook so easily.

At the very least, what he said in August 2002 must have been factual. Otherwise, Clarke has revealed himself to be an opportunist who will lie at the direction of his superiors.

This has got to be one of the most disingenuous things I've seen on the issue. Clarke did the same slimy "not quite technically a lie" that every White House spokesman has done forever, especially during this administration.

In his 2002 briefing, Clarke said that the Bush administration decided in "mid-January" 2001 to continue with existing Clinton policy while deciding whether or not to pursue more aggressive ideas that had been rejected throughout the Clinton administration. Nowhere does this appear in his book.

This is the first of the "not in the book" complaints. Note that "not in the book" doesn't make a lie. Also note that he is giving the Bush line that they were considering doing something more aggressive. No action was taken - in fact, counterterrorism was downgraded as a priority.

He said in 2002 that the Bush administration had decided in principle in the spring of 2001 "to increase CIA resources . . . for covert action, five-fold, to go after al Qaeda." Nowhere is this mentioned in his book.

"decided in principle". It wasn't actually done.

In 2002, Clarke emphasized that the Bush team "changed the strategy from one of rollback with al Qaeda over the course [of] five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda." This is mentioned in his book, but - amazingly - as an afterthought.

"Not mentioned enough in the book. Another Bush talking point, with no evidence of actual action.

In his testimony yesterday, Clarke said that the Clinton administration had "no higher priority" than fighting terror. No. In his own book, he says trying to force a Middle East peace agreement was more important to Clinton than retaliating for the attack against USS Cole.

Um... Middle East peace isn't part of fighting terror? Middle East peace is the most important part of fighting terror.

Clarke says Condi Rice appeared as if she hadn't heard of al Qaeda before he mentioned it to her in early 2001. No. Rice made public statements in late 2000 noting the threat from bin Laden.

I heard of bin Laden LONG before I heard of al Qaeda. Clarke was saying that the same was true of Dr. Rice.

To sum up, Clarke was a part of the political machine of the Bush White House, so he had to give the administration line when speaking for them. So he used all of the weasely political rhetorical tricks to not quite technically lie. And then, like retired generals, he says what he thinks once his career is over.

Just think - if O'neill and Clarke aren't enough, what if Ari Fleischer or Scott McClellan, or even Donald Rumsfeld suddenly started saying the same thing as Clarke? Would you be saying "Oh, but look at all of the things they said when they were part of the administration! They have no credibility!"? Nonpartisan people that Bush held over are quitting and working to get Bush out. That doesn't mean that suddenly they're partisan, it means that they realize that Bush is dangerous.

And here's a pointer to the administration's views on honesty (cancel the print dialog, and look near the middle of the article).

He said in 2002 that the Bush administration had decided in principle in the spring of 2001 "to increase CIA resources . . . for covert action, five-fold, to go after al Qaeda." Nowhere is this mentioned in his book.

"decided in principle". It wasn't actually done.

Well yes, after 7 months, but Clarke also worked for the previous administration which had 8 years to do it and took a shot, and failed, and knew it failed, and said that was good enough.

Both sides failed. That's why the whole thing is political. Now when the media failed to give a crap about the Clarke contradictions, they had to get Feith out as an attack dog to press them harder.

Today the WaPo notices and puts the screws to the guy (reg reqd):

The commission's determination that the two policies were roughly the same calls into question claims made by Bush officials that they were developing a superior terrorism policy. The findings also put into perspective the criticism of President Bush's approach to terrorism by Richard A. Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism chief: For all his harsh complaints about Bush administration's lack of urgency in regard to terrorism, he had no serious quarrel with the actual policy Bush was pursuing before the 2001 attacks.

Anyone can criticize post-attack. Takes a lot of gall to criticize post-attack when you were in charge and didn't complain pre-attack.

But those differences were largely theoretical; administration officials told the panel's investigators that the plan's overall timeline was at least three years, and it did not include firm deadlines, military plans or significant funding at the time of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Talks cheap, show me the money.
If 10 guys drive to work every morning, not wearing a seatbelt and 1 has an accident. The fact that the 9 got away with it, is moot. The one that didn't is a fool.
lots of president's got away with not being proactive on the terrorists. Bush didn't.
Actually the others didn't really get away with it. ie, The Cole, WTC garage, Marine Barracks and various embassy attacks, but that didn't stir people up like 9-11.
But the bottom line is hindsight is 20/20 and nobody (except TW) ever expected an attack on US soil, the size and scope of 9-11.

What really interests me is that you never hear a word about anyone going back and scrutinizing what was happening in regard to the trading of certain stocks on the market in the weeks just prior to 9/11. Terrorism is not exactly a cheap enterprise, and just because someone is a fanatic does not mean he's a fool. I think a scrutiny of large buy and sell orders in certain areas (the airlines, the insurance industry, to name a couple of obvious ones) could reveal some highly interesting information regarding just what entities are backing terrorism in the US, as well as globally. Find out who those folks are and you've taken a giant step toward preventing future 9-11's.

Originally posted by Happy Monkey
Why vulcans? I've only heard this term applied to them once before, and I think it was [tw].

A core group of vulcans is found in the 40 founding members of "Project for a New American Century". They include but should not be limited to Elliott Abrams, Richard L. Armitage, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeffrey Bergner, John Bolton, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Paula Dobriansky, Midge Decter, Steve Forbes, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Dan Quayle, Condoleezza Rice, Peter W. Rodman, Donald Rumsfeld, William Schneider, Jr., Vin Weber, Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, and Robert B. Zoellick.

Fundamental to understanding why we now attack another nation only on our fears is the Doctrine called preemption as defined by the PBS Frontline story called War behind Closed Doors:

>NARRATOR: The weapons inspectors had left in 1998 and were never to return. To the hard-liners, Saddam had won.
Around this time, a group of foreign policy wisemen known as "the Vulcans" were descending on Austin, Texas, to prepare the eventual Republican nominee for the White House. At the governor's mansion, the hawks, the moderates and all varieties of Republicans came to bring the young governor of Texas up to speed about the world.

For more informaton:The Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush's War Cabinet

I am rather surprised you did not hear the Vulcans being described repeatedly in this week's news. Principles of this core group are being questioned as they saw world in terms of Axis of Evil and other traditional fears such as China and Russia and the solution being preemption.

In the meantime, this commentary from a British government minister provides an example of the agenda that vulcans in Project for a New American Century were grappling with as vulcans struggled to define their agenda: Comment-This war on terrorism is bogus

1992 First Draft of a Grand Strategy
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz has been at the center of Pentagon strategic planning in both Bush administrations. A hawk on the use of U.S. military power, Wolfowitz took the lead in drafting the 1992 Defense Planning Guidance on America's military posture toward the world. The draft said that containment was an old idea, a relic of the cold war. It advocated that America should maintain military strength beyond challenge and use it to preempt provocations from rogue states with weapons of mass destruction. And it stated that, if necessary, the U.S. should be prepared to act alone. Leaked to the press, Wolfowitz's draft was rewritten and softened by then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. Ten years later, many analysts see a strong resemblance between President Bush's 2002 National Security Strategy and Wolfowitz's 1992 draft.

Finally you should view the pre Iraq War report from PBS yourself. The War Behind Closed Doors

I'd just never heard of them called Vulcans.

Originally posted by Happy Monkey
I'd just never heard of them called Vulcans.

My mistake. I thought you wanted to write a research paper.

This is probably the only reason why the 911 Hearings are in progress AND why Condoleeza Rice has been forced to testify:
9/11 Widows Skillfully Applied the Power of a Question: Why?

Logic dictates that this commission should have been empowered by the end of 2001. However we now know why the George Jr administration so fears the facts be out. Repeated mismanagement directly traceable to the top man and his staff that still had a cold war mentality. An administration that wanted more oil (the Energy Bill that is only about more oil consumption) and the Axis of Evil (enemy nations only because the administration had decided so in advance).

At least the Clinton administration tried to get bin Laden. George Jr could not be bothered and then preferred that this 911 Hearings not be conducted. George Jr was more concerned about building another Star Wars - to the glory of his legacy. In reality, WTC is more his legacy.

Elliot, the Time Magazine editor who wrote the latest cover story makes an interesting comment. He thought this administration had thought out the consequences of a 911 Commission in advance. He is surprised that this George Jr administration is literally "blindsided by every revelation". It is as if the George Jr administration is totally in denial about their complacency even when they had and were reviewing Richard Clarke's book back in November 2003.

It took Jersey widows to get Washington to acknowledge what this administration is about. Those widows are very angry - justifiably so - that this administration has repeatedly obstructed this 911 Commission. A damning fact. The George Jr administration has been as uncooperative as they could be - for reasons that are now suspiciously obvious. Nixon also was uncooperative to the point that the Supreme Court had to rule unaminously against Nixon. Nixon was also uncooperative as to invade another sovereign nation for no justifiable reason - no smoking gun. Back then it was two unknown reporters. Today some Jersey widows?

As if this George Jr administration has not tried to obstruct the 911 Commission enoug. They still find more ways to keep facts from us. No wonder the Jersey Girls are so mad at this "we fear to be honest" administration - that even claims widespread looting did not happen in Iraq:

from NY Times of 2 April 2004 Bush Aides Block Clinton's Papers From 9/11 Panel
The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said on Thursday that it was pressing the White House to explain why the Bush administration had blocked thousands of pages of classified foreign policy and counterterrorism documents from former President Bill Clinton's White House files from being turned over to the panel's investigators.
...
The commission and the White House were reacting to public complaints from former aides to Mr. Clinton, who said they had been surprised to learn in recent months that three-quarters of the nearly 11,000 pages of files the former president was ready to offer the commission had been withheld by the Bush administration. The former aides said the files contained highly classified documents about the Clinton administration's efforts against Al Qaeda.
...
Mr. Lindsey, who is Mr. Clinton's liaison to the National Archives, said ... he had read through many of the 10,800 pages that were collected and believed them to be valuable to the work of the panel.
"They involved all of the issues — Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, terrorism, all of the areas with the commission's jurisdiction," he said. He made his first public complaints about the handling of the documents in an interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday.

from NY Times of 4 April 2004
The White House has insisted there was nothing that could have been done to prevent the Sept. 11 attacks. The White House spokesman Scott McClellan said last month that charges by Richard Clark, Mr. Bush's former terrorism chief, that the administration could have done more to prevent the attacks were "deeply irresponsible," "offensive," and "flat-out false." Ms. Rice, in an interview on the CBS News program "60 Minutes" last week, insisted that the Bush administration regarded terrorism as "an urgent problem" before Sept. 11. "I would like very much to know what more could have been done given that it was an urgent problem," she said.

But that is not what Governor Kean, head of the 911 Commission, is saying:

from NY Times of 4 April 2004
Thomas H. Kean, chairman of the commission and former Republican governor of New Jersey, said that had the United States seized early opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden in the years before Sept. 11, "the whole story would've been different."

Mr. Kean's comments on the NBC News program "Meet the Press" echoed statements he made in December and January. But he emphatically declared that additional months of testimony and investigation had not altered his view.

"What we've found now on the commission has not changed that belief because there were so many threads and so many things, individual things, that happened," he said. "And if some of those things hadn't happened the way they happened," the attacks could have been prevented.

Just another conclusion in direct contradiction to George Jr administration spin. Just another reason to ask why this administration obstructs the 911 Commission; starting with stifling the Commission's formation (as even the Jersey Girls claim), to nearly forcing the entire Commission to resign by refusing to provide necessary information, and now to the latest obstruction - withholding 11,000 pages of relevant Clinton administration documents while forgetting to even tell the Clinton curator that those documents were not delivered. One must ask how much more information has been stifled and why this administration is in cover-up mode; so much like the Nixon White House.

Keep these 911 revelations in perspective. White House cover-up appears more to be business as usual - as was the Watergate investigation. Those who did not follow Watergate "live" (those under 45) probably think Watergate was big headline news back then. Except for Woodward and Bernstein, most domestic press and public completely ignored the serious implications of Watergate. Most early Watergate relevations back then were not even reported by most newspapers. If you don't see the serious implications in this administration's spin, then you are reliving exactly how most of America understood Watergate - until years later after Judge Sirica, John Dean, and McCord basically blew a whistle even the press could not ignore.

Lies of this adminstration are as boldfaced and disturbing as were Nixon's Watergate lies back then. Only during Watergate Senate hearings did Americans finally realized how corrupt and how dispicable that Nixon administration really was - with full intent to undermine the US Constitution as necessary to promote their agenda. In particular I cite the Senate Hearing confrontation between Sen Erivn and John Erlichmann as Erlichmann even denied the meaning and intent of the Fourth Amendment. Agenda was more important than the nation, the Constitution, or even basic individual ethics. But back then, most Americans still thought Nixon was a good man.

Posted earlier was how a Saudi would visit a new American president, leave a briefcase of $1million (in $100 bills), and see if someone called to return that briefcase. Nixon did not. Would this George Jr administration return a briefcase accidentally left at the White House being as campaign contributions are so important? Is the agenda and needs for campaign contributions more important than basic American principles? If so, then they would also need obstruct those 911 Commisson hearings. Too many embarrassing facts are already being exposed.

[COLOR=indigo]I watched Dr. Rice's public testimony on CSPAN the other night, and I saw this morning the White House released the 8/6/01 PDB. This is the document that Dr. Rice repeatedly and vehemently called a "historical document" and not one with a direct threat.

Since at the time of her public hearing, the document had not been released, the commission could not ask her direct questions on how, conceivablly, she could have construed this document as purely historical, and not a threat. Just the one page I saw clearly indicates that a threat on US soil was imminent (sp).

True, it didn't indicate where and when and how, but it does contain clear language that a threat was forthcoming. How this could be seen as "historical" and not raise flags everywhere is beyond me.
[/COLOR]

I suppose that could be a judgement call, and therefore technically not perjury.

But it's very bad judgement if it's not perjury.

In fairness, I would like to know how many other pages/documents were in the pile with that "historical document" on 8-6-01. How many other possibilities/scenarios were being considered at the same time. It's always clearer in retrospect. :confused:

Well, it was the Presidential Daily Briefing. In other words, the things the President should look at today, condensed down to two pages.

In the mainland Uk we had terrorist attacks from the IRA for many years. Bomb scares and news reports of explosions killing people were a way of life. We frequently saw British citizens being blown up while out shopping with their children or going about their work. Can you explain how and why we had to put up with a terrorist organisation which was being extensively financed by some US businesses and individuals.

Where were you? You were giving them money to help them to do it.

When Britain was suffering frequent terrorist attacks from the IRA the US people did not come to our aid in fact some of them financed the bomb making and supplied the weapons for the shootings. I hope you will remember that our country has given the lives of our servicemen to help you in your hour of need at great risk to our citizens who are now awaiting the UK version of 911 as a result

When Britain needed the US they helped the enemy. When the US asked for British support we stood with you against the world.

Originally posted by Dotster

When Britain needed the US they [sic] helped the enemy.

Man, you got a seriously short freakin' memory.

Not only that but by your so-called logic, I could demonstrate that 'Britain' helped the US' enemies since clerics/mosques/Muslim charities located in England provided financial and logistical support to Al Queda.

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
True, it didn't indicate where and when and how, but it does contain clear language that a threat was forthcoming. How this could be seen as "historical" and not raise flags everywhere is beyond me.

The document said "who" - Al Qaeda. It said "where" - inside the US. It said "how" - planes and buildings (just like in a Clancy novel). It said "when" - immenent. It just did not say exactly "where" in the US nor provide a time. This is not enough to get George Jr's attention? Of course not. After the first plane attack, he continued on to the FL elementary school because he still had no idea that terrorism could happen. Could he read an 6 Aug morning briefing - the first thing he must read every day - without Cheney to explain it?

John O'Neill, only days before, was quoted by newspaper reporter saying the attack was to be any time now. Our people knew that much - except in the White House. But because not all little details were provided, then it was not actionable? No wonder they had to force John O'Neill into retirement. Denial at highest levels was that strong - mostly because a domestic attack was a fear of the Clinton administration.

Maybe not actionable by agents in the field. But clearly actionable by anyone who is a principle in the White House. And so we have the expression "shaking the trees". Had the administration bothered to shake the trees then we now know that FBI agent offices (MN, AZ, IL) had information that could have stopped the attack. We know that John O'Neill's team had names that, if shared with the CIA on Interlink, would have identified the attackers as already in position in this country. And we know that no federal agents were told to look for any terrorism even in FL. Rice and her boss could not be bothered to seek further information.

In the Clinton administration, principles (the top officers) conducted drills where disaster scenario was provided (cabin cruiser docked in Manhatten with a nuclear device on board). Principles (cabinet officiers) were expected to plan a solution. As a result, the various Clinton White House agencies were constantly making plans for a terrorist attack. All this was thrown out by the George Jr administration that viewed such games as not to be trusted - because it was by Clinton people.

No wonder it was not actionable. It was another Clinton era nonsense that was wasting time. Principles did not have an exact time. Therefore they could not be bothered to investigate - shake the tree. Back then, terrorism was a myth of the Clinton administration. Which is why a Clinton person - O'Neill - had to be forced out of office.

Honestly, getting back to the title of the thread, the only thing I need to know about the 9/11 hearings is that the FBI and the CIA both had their collective heads up their rear and that's why it happened. The factual information was in the actual possession of FBI field agents that, if acted upon, could have led to the apprehension of the hijackers well in advance of the attack. Since they all had fake papers and some were already wanted, they would have all gone to jail for a very long time.

To blame either Bush or Clinton is just not right. Ramsi Youseff had the plans (planes into skyscrapers) when he was aprehended in the Phillipines in the early 90s. Al Queda tried to level the WTC in 1993. Had they been successful then, would you blame Clinton? Honestly, tw, I suspect you would blame Bush, Sr.

I don't mind that you hate Bush. I really don't - there's lots not to like about the guy for some people. But this dot-connecting stuff is just over the top for me. For every stupid thing that happened while Bush was in the White House, there were stupid things that happened while Clinton was in the White House. As much as I dislike Clinton, I would never hold him or any single person responsible for such a tragedy.

You want to blame someone? Blame bin Laden. We had a long time to neutralize him and we failed to act. Not Bush, not Clinton, we, as a country, failed to take care of business and we bloody paid for it.

Originally posted by Beestie
To blame either Bush or Clinton is just not right.

Responsibility changes with each person's perspective. It is the responsibility of bin Laden to not attack other people. That is completely irrelevant to a president's responsibilities. It is the president's responsibility to stop bin Laden's of this world. To "swat flies". George Sr. did that. Clinton did that multiple times. George Jr even had information that an attack was immenent and George Jr did nothing. No other president was that negligent. George Jr did nothing. So we blame bin Laden for George Jr doing nothing?

Why not blame the victims for their own death? Using logic that blames bin Laden, then we can also blame the victims for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Information that an attack was imment was on the president's desk on 6 Aug 2001 - first thing in the morning. He did nothing when any responsible person would have 'shaken the trees'. We also know this to be fact. This president has preconceived agendas. Anti-terrorism was a Clinton thing - and Clinton was always wrong. Best to do nothing.

George Jr's agenda to protect US from terrorism was the anti-ballistic missile system. Do you remember those days? George Carlin (famous comedian) described George Jr's defense system. Row a boat up to Manhatten, throw a biological weapon on the dock. Row out of NY harbor. George Jr's protection from these terrorists was the anti-ballistic missile system. That's it.

Repeated question by one member in the 911 Commission was never answered because there is no answer.

Why didn't we swat that fly?

He kept repeatedly asking for just one attempt by the George Jr administration to stop terrorism. None. Repeatedly he kept asking for one simple example where the George jr administration just once tried to stop terrorist - where one fly was swatted. Not one attempt is listed. George Jr did not even try to plan an attack on terrorism.

During the George Jr administration, it was proven that Al Qaeda had performed the USS Cole attack. Why did we not attack in response to that attack? George Jr could not be bothered.

OK Beestie - you do it. Please cite one attempt by the George Jr administration to "swat a fly" before 11 September. The answer is none. They did not even attack in response to the USS Cole bombing. They did not even have principles meetings on the subject. Instead they even force this nation's number one expert on terrorism to resign. Why kill the messenger because he was only telling a truth? Damning fact. Where in all this do we blame bin Laden? bin Laden was not negligent in his duties. George Jr was.

Even when a specific terrorism act is on the president's desk 36 days in advance - George Jr does nothing - zero - nada. He does not even ask questions. Pray tell - where is that something we should blame on bin Laden? Why avoid the issue? bin Laden did not make George Jr ignore terrorist warmings. Only George Jr ignored the warnings. He did nothing. He never once even tried to 'swat a fly'. For that we blame bin Laden? That is called silly spin - to avoid a hard fact of presidential negligence.

Originally posted by Beestie
You want to blame someone? Blame bin Laden. We had a long time to neutralize him and we failed to act. Not Bush, not Clinton, we, as a country, failed to take care of business and we bloody paid for it.

We did not ignore the threats of terrorism. As the George Jr pushed an anti-missile defense system to protect from terrorism, the we s out here were saying this is nonsense, a lie, wrong headed, too much money for a threat that does not exist, and that the system does not work. The only people promoting nonsense while - as we now know - he would not even swat flies is George Jr. We worried about reality. But we foolishly elected a president who cannot be bothered by facts and reality. Please show me where that anti-ballistic missile system would have protected the WTC - as George Jr claims?

Even worse, we now know that other WEs were warning of an impending attack. They - the mental midget president - could not be bothered to even ask questions - let alone even try to discover or expose the impending attack. WE did our job by voicing obvious concern for stupidity in the presidency. But the president proved himself righteous - and never even bothered to 'swat flies' reported even on his desk on 6 Aug or as proven to be the attackers of the USS Cole.

Did you hear Conduleezza Rice? They could not even be bothered to attack in response to the USS Cole bombing because a revenge attack on bin Laden and his terrorist camps would only encourage Al Qaeda. WE are saying this is nonsense whereby the president justifies his negligence. He instead did nothing. He did not even try to avenge the Cole!!! Where, pray tell, do we blame bin Laden for such negligence?

Originally posted by Beestie
Originally posted by Dotster
Man, you got a seriously short freakin' memory.

Not only that but by your so-called logic, I could demonstrate that 'Britain' helped the US' enemies since clerics/mosques/Muslim charities located in England provided financial and logistical support to Al Queda.

Who has a short memory?

What is the problem?

The US let the 911 terrorists in the country, The US trained them in pilot skills, the US let them through airport security systems, the US failed to track them as terrorists despite warnings from European and Muslim countries.

If I want to come to the US I have to go through a stringent check which will involve me in having to go to the US embassy in London to obtain a Visa in person and stand in a queue for hours. I am an honest upright taxpaying british citizen. Your country is treating me and my compatriots like criminals. Your country will take my fingerprints when I enter even though we are your allies. Many of my friends have youngsters serving in Iraq . ON YOUR BEHALF> My family were going to do the Disney thing in America this year but I will not go there. I will spend my money in Europe.

If I was an Arab terrorist I could enter the US without all the shit I'd just need to ask to train as a pilot.who doesn't want to land However as a tourist who wants to go to Disney, or the Canyon, New York, Alcatraz, etc I get shit and am asked what colour my pee is


But then I have a freakin short memory.

Originally posted by Dotster
If I want to come to the US I have to go through a stringent check which will involve me in having to go to the US embassy in London to obtain a Visa in person and stand in a queue for hours. I am an honest upright taxpaying british citizen.

British citizens do not require visas to enter the US.

You will, however, be subjected to the US fingerprint-and-photo routine, which is providing employment to countless ex-cops, ex-security guards, and ex-concentration camp-guards.

Originally posted by Dotster

My family were going to do the Disney thing in America this year but I will not go there. I will spend my money in Europe.

[color=indigo]
You do that. Try Spain. It's safe in Spain, right? They thought so too.

Yeah. Wanna know why Tony Blair jumped on board the US bandwagon again? Because of all the help Yanks give the Brits on a DAILY basis. Count how many US Air Force Bases and how many BRITS they employ and what US forces do for the economy? How many Yanks visit London every year? Scotland?

So quit with the quips about how the US gives the UK nothing, because that's bullshit too.
[/color]

If I was an Arab terrorist I could enter the US without all the shit

[color=indigo]That's bullshit, and I know that from first hand experience, as I'm sure Radar does. People who are on the US Govt's "partner" list gets in without a Visa.

Here's a list. Check the bottom.
Countries in the Visa Waiver Program:
Andorra
Austria
Australia
Belgium
Brunei
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Monaco
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
San Marino
Singapore
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom (For citizens with the unrestricted right of permanent abode in England Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.)

(This information is from this link

So basically, you don't know what you're talking about.
[/color]

I'd just need to ask to train as a pilot.who doesn't want to land However as a tourist who wants to go to Disney, or the Canyon, New York, Alcatraz, etc I get shit and am asked what colour my pee is

[color=indigo]Actually for those people who DO require a visa (which you don't) it is a lengthy process just to get a VISITOR visa, but not impossible. Let's say you're from Croatia. You have to provide 6 months of job history or school attendance, and/or have 6 months of wages (minimum rate) in the bank that you can't touch while you're in the US, and if you're a male, you have to show your mandatory military service discharge form. You also need a physical examination including blood work, to make sure you don't have a contagious disease, (AIDS, HIV) or if you do, you have to provide evidence that you have an American Doctor waiting for your arrival and have a shitload more money in the bank (different account) to cover expenses.

I know because I tried getting a male croatian friend over for 3 months. I had to sponsor him in, which meant I had to have a fulltime job earning at least minimum wage, and not have been on any type of federal or state assistance in the last 6 months (other than school loans).

That's just to go to disneyland.

So come back when you know what you are talking about.
[/color]

But then I have a freakin short memory.

[color=indigo]No, you're just clueless.[/color]

Originally posted by russotto
British citizens do not require visas to enter the US.

You will, however, be subjected to the US fingerprint-and-photo routine, which is providing employment to countless ex-cops, ex-security guards, and ex-concentration camp-guards.

Last time I heard, the US will requires Visas of all nations that cannot comply with new requirements set forth by the US. That means British citizens now must get visas to enter the US.

But it even gets worse. Large numbers of high tech conferences are now moving out of the US due to the so restrictive and excessive requirements imposed even on citizens of allied nations. This means less innovation at home AND this means the major source of American scientists and engineers (the innovators) has now been obstructed. IEEE Spectrum was particularly blunt about this trend.

There really was no shortage of information reporting on which terrorists were entering the country. There was a shortage of tools to connect existing information with those terrorists. Hell. FBI agents were not even permitted to have necessary computers in their offices! But then the list of failures directly traceable to the FBI is so long and in virtually every section of the FBI from internal security, to hostage rescue, to the FBI labs faking data, and to even obstruting John O'Neill - their #1 man on terrorism.

For example, John O'Neill had the names of two well know terrorists who had attacked the USS Cole. The CIA had those same names as being in the US for months. Because of numerous problems directly traceable to top management, no one - the patriots also known as the little people - were permitted to connect the dots. Even US Ambassador to Yemen - Barbara Bodine - impeded an investigation that had almost exposed the WTC attack months in advance.

So now we must give the government a list of every book you borrow from the library - only because some top government officials were too political and too technically naive to do their job? Yes. Ashcroft cannot admit his office is the problem. In his mind, we are the problem. We citizens of the US cannot even be trusted to read the right books.

America must even subject foreign friends to bureaucracy only because the current administration wants a Fatherland Security network and its justification - Patriot Acts. Yes, most nations in OynxCougar's list must now issue Visas because they cannot comply with the "we fear" list of requirements.

Dotser is right to complain. He is a citizen of a Nato nation. In security, Nato citizens once were top notch, most trusted foreign visitors. If a sibling marries someone from a non-Nato country, then a Secret security clearance was denied. Should that sibling marry into a Nato country, then no problem with a security clearance. That was once how it was when our allies were also trusted friends.

But this nation - as even The Economist noted on their front cover - would tramble on basic civil rights and think nothing of it. No surprise that Dotser must tell Americans what their nation is doing. Americans do not even know this. Too much Rush Limbaugh and Fox News means no honest facts in America. Americans have so little knowledge of the world as to even think foreigners were always envious of America to the point of hating Americans. Again, they misguided Americans spent too much time listening the the drug addict and money launderer Limbaugh. No wonder so many Americans still think (as Bush implied in his news conference) that Daniel Pearl was another reasons to attack Saddam and Iraq.

For those who still don't know, Daniel Pearl was killed due to events in Afghanistan during his investigations into Al Qaeda. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq. But there is now great mistrust even of British citizens.

Originally posted by tw
Last time I heard, the US will requires Visas of all nations that cannot comply with new requirements set forth by the US. That means British citizens now must get visas to enter the US.

[COLOR=indigo]Link provided above to the State Department page on Visas. Current. Brits do NOT need Visas.[/COLOR]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
Link provided above to the State Department page on Visas. Current. Brits do NOT need Visas.

"Currently" but not necessarily when Dotster was seeking entrance into America. From that link:

The Secretary of State has granted a postponement until October 26, 2004, as the deadline whereby visa waiver program travelers from 21 VWP countries must present a machine-readable passport (MRP) at the U.S. port of entry to enter the U.S. without a visa, otherwise a U.S visa is required. Starting October 26, 2004, visa waiver travelers from ALL 27 Visa Waiver Program countries must present either a machine-readable passport or a U.S. visa.

IOW Dotster either needed a new passport that Britian could not create ... or he had to apply for a Visa. Either way, he had to stand in long lines. Later, Secretary of State suspended these requirements because Britian and many other nations could not comply with these new American requirements.

Will these new passports solve the problem? Problem is a government that had plenty of information even about the WTC attacks - all without these restrictions - and still top management refused to let the workers connect the dots - discover the attacks months before 11 September.

Dotster's complain by itself is but a symptom of a much larger problem. Will a big and new layers of bureaucracy - ie. Office of Fatherland Security and Patriot Act - solve the original problem? Dotster did not post incorrectly. Since then, apparently the rules changed - but again.

Dotster is wrong about one thing though. Even pilots are now going elsewhere to learn their skill. America has even made an education in America substantically difficult.

Originally posted by tw
IOW Dotster either needed a new passport that Britian could not create ... or he had to apply for a Visa. Either way, he had to stand in long lines. Later, Secretary of State suspended these requirements because Britian and many other nations could not comply with these new American requirements.

[COLOR=indigo]And when did Dotster try to get in? I read through again, and didn't find any reference to WHEN Dotster attempted to enter the US, just remarks about people standing in line. Please post the relevant quote, tw.


Edit:

From the link
What I Need to Know about VWP & the Required Machine Readable Passport?

The Secretary of State, working with the Department of Homeland Security, has granted a postponement until October 26, 2004, as the date by which visa waiver program travelers from 21 countries must present a machine-readable passport at a U.S. port of entry to be admitted to the United States without a visa. Four countries will continue with the October 1, 2003 deadline. The Patriot Act legislated the machine-readable passport requirement for visa waiver program travelers and additionally gave the Secretary of State authority to postpone the effective date.

Countries With an October 1, 2003 MRP Date - Four visa waiver program countries, specifically Andorra, Brunei, Liechtenstein, and Slovenia, did not request a postponement of the machine-readable passport effective date, because all or virtually all of their citizens already have machine-readable passports.

Countries With a October 26, 2004 MRP Date - Travelers from countries granted the postponement can continue to travel, as they have in the past, without a machine-readable passport.

On October 26, 2004 a machine-readable passport or U.S. visa will be required at the port of entry, to enter the U.S. without a visa. Countries with the machine-readable passport postponement until October 26, 2004 are:

Australia, Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

As you can see, Brits can and HAVE BEEN able to travel to the US with no Visa. The lines may have been to get a Machine Readable Passport, but they weren't to get Visas. We simply don't require it from them. Haven't for a long, long time. So Dotster was wrong, and so are you.
[/COLOR]

And when did Dotster try to get in? I read through again, and didn't find any reference to WHEN Dotster attempted to enter the US, just remarks about people standing in line. Please post the relevant quote, tw.

Completely irrelevant is when Dotster tried to come to America.

Dotster was refering to a problem that was also reported by international press. I was not aware that the Secretary of State recinded Visa requirements, nor did I realize those requirements did get implemented.

But Dotster demonstrates a problem. We Americans are now so paranoid (due to an administration that will lie - like Nixon - to promote their agenda) as to demand these new passports even from our closest friends. Yes - if you have been listenting to world citizens, then what Dotster complains about has been widely discussed. Just another fact that says America has so changed for the worst. My god. Just look at how UT's posts have even changed - from Libertarian to hard line conservative. To promote those aluminum tubes even when advanced physics labs (ie Sandia) said tubes were not appropirate for use in centrifuges. Don't believe this? See the Union for Concerned Scientist report at www.ucsusa.org. Even UT ignored science to promote this president's agenda of fear.

Dotster. I hope your countrymen are reading this because I am talking about what has changed, in only a few short years, inside of America.

After reality proved these nonsense 'high tech' passports could not be accomplished (because the paranoid leaders failed to do their homework), only then do we Americans change the rules - again. Right there in OnyxCougar's citation - the Secretary of State changes the rules - again. Why were rules created when they could not be accomplished? And why do we so fear even British citizens?

I don't agree with everything that Dotster complains about. But the one important point he demonstrates is how paranoid this current administration - and some members of the Cellar - have become. We promote big bureacracy solutions rather than fixing defective top management. Number one problem: top management, moreso today than ever bofore, does not come from the field - where the work gets done. That traditionally has been the source of anti-American behavior.

Dotster is correct to complain, but fails to understand why. All this nonsense about electronically readable passports ignores that top 'George Jr' management remain a problem. Hell, at least three - and maybe more - Presidential Daily Briefings have been uncovered by the 911 Commission. Everyone was hidden by this 'we fear' administration because PDBs warned about what became 11 September.

Dotster's complaint is but the tip of an iceberg - that stretches everywhere that American once had friends in great numbers. Amazing what happens when a president lies about Iraq, Saddam, and implies that all foreigners are dangerous. First he destroys good relationships with virutally every nation in the world. Virtually every nation. Pesident even tried to claim those PDB did not exist. No problem. Blame those dangerous "Dotster's and friends". Who else will be blame - besides me.

Originally posted by tw
IOW Dotster either needed a new passport that Britian could not create ... or he had to apply for a Visa. Either way, he had to stand in long lines.

Completely irrelevant is when Dotster tried to come to America.

[color=indigo]
Pick an argument. You can't say something is completely irrelevant when you're bringing it up as a point in your endless rants.

And before you keep droning on about the same thing, I get it. It's all GWB and his administration's fault. Next?
[/color]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
Pick an argument. You can't say something is completely irrelevant when you're bringing it up as a point in your endless rants.

I'm sorry you will be getting divorsed. But don't take it out on me. I am not your husband. Personal attacks don't prove your point.

Even your own citation demonstrates what Dotster was complaining about. 'When' is irrelevant. Don't blame me. You quoted the source. The US government did impose restrictions on allied nations meaning that, for a while, our best international friends had to apply for Visas. At one point even Canada was on that list. Apparantly some phone calls between Ottawa and Washington quickly created a Canadian exemption. I don't remember details but solution did invoke some previous Canadian / American border agreements. Dotster's reasons for complaint from Britian did exist becasue Britian could not provide the required passports.

Originally posted by tw
I'm sorry you will be getting divorsed. But don't take it out on me. I am not your husband. Personal attacks don't prove your point.

[COLOR=indigo]Dude, What are you smoking??? Seriously. I'm sure many people here would like some. What ever gave you the idea I am getting divorced? (By the way, you spelled it wrong.)

In addition, where am I getting personal?? I honestly don't see a personal attack...[/COLOR]

Originally posted by tw
source. The US government did impose restrictions on allied nations meaning that, for a while, our best international friends had to apply for Visas.

No, it didn't.

I see a waterfall and a canoe with no paddles.

:)

Well on my British passport I'd still have to have fingerprints taken. That isn't my idea of friendly to a nation that's given more support than anyone to the US's War on Whatever.

I've never exactly been a big fan of the US but I wouldn't consider travel there until I can enter without being treated like a convicted criminal and I know plenty of others like me. I also know a growing group of people refusing work in the US because of the increasingly ridiculous legal system coupled with these new ludicrous feelgood^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H security measures.

Well guys, it looks like our measures were successful. :)

[COLOR=indigo]Personally, I don't see anything wrong with fingerprinting foreign nationals. If they are here on legitimate business, I don't understand the resistance. It makes it one step harder for people who are faking passports to do so. I think that's a good idea.

IMO, I prefer the increased "security measures" such as fingerprints on passports, because we got complacent before, and it bit us on the ass. Now, when we try to increase security, people complain. So what, we're suppose to be complacent again? Don't think so.

Well, then complain. We don't need you over here complaining anyway. Stay home and complain.
[/COLOR]

I hope the terrorists don't stroll in from Mexico or Canada.;)

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with fingerprinting foreign nationals. If they are here on legitimate business, I don't understand the resistance. It makes it one step harder for people who are faking passports to do so. I think that's a good idea.

In which case you are an advocate of a National Identity and Verfication program. After all, the WTC terrorists used American ID. Most popular ID for the WTC attack was NJ driver's license. Why? Driver's licenses are being used for a purpose they were never intended - so that you can prove your identity.

It is not the fingerprinting that created the problem. It was a sudden demand for microchips in passports. The proclaimation was made without even first learning what could and could not be done - classic MBA type solutions. This caused a massive problem for our friends who had to stand for hours in lines for Visas - because this computer chip passport could not be implemented by Oct 2004. It is only recently that Powell finally recinded the requirement.

But why the requirement? The US government did not have an information collecting problem. They had and probably still have an information processing problem. Problem was not with the existing passport system. WTC attack could occur becasue little people were stifled by top management from doing their job. The list is long from John O'Neill, Richard Clarke, FBI agents in AZ, IL, and MN - and onwards.

And so we fix a defective top management problem by creating a big computer chip passport system?

Why no terrorists lately? Top management decided that maybe terrorism was a problem. Suddenly little people were empowered to do their job. Problem even traceable to a president who had at least three warnings specifically about the WTC attack - and did nothing. Problem being that this administration even tried to hide those warnings rather than admit to the reason why WTC attackers were never detected. A computer passport is cute. But it does not solve the original problem - top management who could not even be bothered to respond to obvious warnings.

Even after Al Qaeda tried to use commercial airliners as missiles to attack the Eiffel Tower years previous (a concept even demonstrated in a Tom Clancey novel), Condi Rice claims she could never forsee terrorists using aircraft as missiles. Therein lies the problem. Top management even in denial. High tech passports only a knee jerk solution that does not address the original problem.

Blame the foreigners. Its all their fault. We don't need no stickin National ID system. Driver's Licenses do just fine. We don't need no president that listens to warnings. Don't worry. Be happy.

[COLOR=indigo]mhm.[/COLOR]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
I hope the terrorists don't stroll in from Mexico or Canada.;)

Actually one of my nightmares is hearing that schools in the middle east are adding Spanish to their curriculum. The truth is that between legal and illegal immigration, we have a large back door into the US. Think about all of the places where menial workers can go and the loose or non-existent documentation requirements.

The fact is, many companies and government offices no longer hire their own cleaning staffs. In many cases they are contractors, sub-contracters, or sub-sub-contractors. Since illegal aliens work cheaper, there is already an environment of avoiding documentation and background checks.

Can anyone really tell a work crew of Salvadorans from one made up of ethnic Saudis?

Nah...they all look the same...

The biometric requirement, which is where the microchips come in, has not been rescinded. But it only applies to NEWLY-ISSUED passports after October 26, 2004.

The machine-readable passport simply uses OCR fonts in a specific location.

Can anyone really tell a work crew of Salvadorans from one made up of ethnic Saudis?

Most of us in Texas can. On the other hand, I am shocked when people can tell Korean, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Taiwanese, and Thai people apart just by looking at them. It's all in what you're used to seeing.

It had long been acknowledged as one path into the US. Escape from a refugee camp only just one-half mile from the Chunnel. Walk under the channel. Get a plane from Britian to Canada - no passport was required. Cross any land border between US and Canada.

Since then, we have made this path more difficult - requiring forged documents to use that airplane. The point is that immigration controls are only a filter, as border guard Debra demonstrated. After being warned by the Clinton administration that acutally took threats seriously, Debra then identified and ran down what would be the Los Angles airport bomber.

Filter not only work here but identified a long list of bombing that included Toronto, the NYC Millenium celebration, the (was it?) Hilton hotel in Amman Jordan, and other bombings. The one bombing that Debra did not end up stopping was the USS The Sullivans. Terrorists so overloaded their boat with bombs that the boat sunk.

The system works when the president first takes warnings seriously. The system does not work when the president sounds five Orange alerts on threats that just did not exist but were timed to mask his other blunders; to shore up a falling popularity in polls.