Every Picture Tells a Story, Don't it?

DriftingByTheStorm

BinauralJam wrote:

Guilani sure didn't sit on his ass for 9 minutes

He sure didn't!

BinauralJam

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

BinauralJam wrote:

Guilani sure didn't sit on his ass for 9 minutes

He sure didn't!

Bull Shit!

Who Princess

Sheesh.
I have some EXTREMELY strong feelings about all this too but does it really accomplish anything to rehash it again and again?

It's the anniversary of a very sad day. It was also a day when we saw some people at their finest and a day when we all felt united. It may sound naive but I wish it would be observed with respect.

DS1119

ComeToTX wrote:

Documents show the U.S. was given more warnings about potential terrorist attacks in the weeks leading up to 9/11, writes Vanity Fair contributing editor Kurt Eichenwald in a New York Times op-ed.

The documents predate the presidential daily briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, which said, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”

“The administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed,” he wrote. “In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.”

The direct warnings to Bush, he writes, date back to the spring of 2001. On May 1, the CIA told the White House that there was “a group presently in the United States” that was planning an attack. On June 22, a daily briefing described the attack as "imminent." Administration officials, however, dismissed the warnings, saying that Osama bin Laden was merely feigning an attack to distract the U.S. from efforts against Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
“Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day,” Eichenwald wrote. “In response, the CIA prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.”

Briefings on June 29, July 1, and July 24 carried similar warnings. On July 9, Eichenwald writes, one official suggested staff members of the CIA Counterterrorism Center “put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place.”

“[The Bush administration] got this information and they weren't looking at it in the context of here's this huge threat that's developed,” Eichenwald said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “Look at what the Pentagon said, ‘What's the nation state that's backing them? Oh, we think it's Iraq.’ And so, it was a frame of mind that was not unreasonable for them to have because they hadn't been getting the intelligence until very recently about the evolution and change of al-Qaida.”

Eichenwald, however, was criticized by former New York Gov. George Pataki, a Republican, for writing the piece.

“I think this is incredibly unfortunate,” he said on Morning Joe, adding that, "I think is incredibly unfair and a disservice to history.”

Eichenwald wrote a book, “500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars,” describing the intelligence briefings and actions taken by the Bush administration before and after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

And there are plenty of things the Big O "ignored" as president. Just google "things obama ignored".

Cliffy6745

DS1119 wrote:

ComeToTX wrote:

Documents show the U.S. was given more warnings about potential terrorist attacks in the weeks leading up to 9/11, writes Vanity Fair contributing editor Kurt Eichenwald in a New York Times op-ed.

The documents predate the presidential daily briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, which said, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”

“The administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed,” he wrote. “In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.”

The direct warnings to Bush, he writes, date back to the spring of 2001. On May 1, the CIA told the White House that there was “a group presently in the United States” that was planning an attack. On June 22, a daily briefing described the attack as "imminent." Administration officials, however, dismissed the warnings, saying that Osama bin Laden was merely feigning an attack to distract the U.S. from efforts against Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
“Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day,” Eichenwald wrote. “In response, the CIA prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.”

Briefings on June 29, July 1, and July 24 carried similar warnings. On July 9, Eichenwald writes, one official suggested staff members of the CIA Counterterrorism Center “put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place.”

“[The Bush administration] got this information and they weren't looking at it in the context of here's this huge threat that's developed,” Eichenwald said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “Look at what the Pentagon said, ‘What's the nation state that's backing them? Oh, we think it's Iraq.’ And so, it was a frame of mind that was not unreasonable for them to have because they hadn't been getting the intelligence until very recently about the evolution and change of al-Qaida.”

Eichenwald, however, was criticized by former New York Gov. George Pataki, a Republican, for writing the piece.

“I think this is incredibly unfortunate,” he said on Morning Joe, adding that, "I think is incredibly unfair and a disservice to history.”

Eichenwald wrote a book, “500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars,” describing the intelligence briefings and actions taken by the Bush administration before and after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

And there are plenty of things the Big O "ignored" as president. Just google "things obama ignored".

BWHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA.

When you do that, this is actually the first result

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazi ... php?page=1

Thanks though.

hedonist

Who Princess wrote:

It's the anniversary of a very sad day. It was also a day when we saw some people at their finest and a day when we all felt united. It may sound naive but I wish it would be observed with respect.

Beautifully said.

(and if what you said is naive, then I suppose I am too)

Cliffy6745

I do agree. I have seen a lot of the news today about how there are new relevations of that GW ignored leading up to it. I think it is pretty clear to everyone the threat was ignored and we were attacked. I don't know why it has to be discussed today. There was some serious negligence and we paid dearly, let's just remember the dead and the first responders today and tomorrow we can talk about how it happened.

DS1119

Cliffy6745 wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

ComeToTX wrote:

Documents show the U.S. was given more warnings about potential terrorist attacks in the weeks leading up to 9/11, writes Vanity Fair contributing editor Kurt Eichenwald in a New York Times op-ed.

The documents predate the presidential daily briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, which said, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”

“The administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed,” he wrote. “In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.”

The direct warnings to Bush, he writes, date back to the spring of 2001. On May 1, the CIA told the White House that there was “a group presently in the United States” that was planning an attack. On June 22, a daily briefing described the attack as "imminent." Administration officials, however, dismissed the warnings, saying that Osama bin Laden was merely feigning an attack to distract the U.S. from efforts against Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
“Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day,” Eichenwald wrote. “In response, the CIA prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.”

Briefings on June 29, July 1, and July 24 carried similar warnings. On July 9, Eichenwald writes, one official suggested staff members of the CIA Counterterrorism Center “put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place.”

“[The Bush administration] got this information and they weren't looking at it in the context of here's this huge threat that's developed,” Eichenwald said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “Look at what the Pentagon said, ‘What's the nation state that's backing them? Oh, we think it's Iraq.’ And so, it was a frame of mind that was not unreasonable for them to have because they hadn't been getting the intelligence until very recently about the evolution and change of al-Qaida.”

Eichenwald, however, was criticized by former New York Gov. George Pataki, a Republican, for writing the piece.

“I think this is incredibly unfortunate,” he said on Morning Joe, adding that, "I think is incredibly unfair and a disservice to history.”

Eichenwald wrote a book, “500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars,” describing the intelligence briefings and actions taken by the Bush administration before and after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

And there are plenty of things the Big O "ignored" as president. Just google "things obama ignored".

BWHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA.

When you do that, this is actually the first result

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazi ... php?page=1

Thanks though.

Keep scrolling. You need to only get to number two and then it continues for pages.

Cliffy6745

DS1119 wrote:

BWHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA.

When you do that, this is actually the first result

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazi ... php?page=1

Thanks though.

Keep scrolling. You need to only get to number two and then it continues for pages. [/quote]

It's over...I'm good. I got my kicks.

DS1119

Cliffy6745 wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

BWHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA.

When you do that, this is actually the first result

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazi ... php?page=1

Thanks though.

Keep scrolling. You need to only get to number two and then it continues for pages.

It's over...I'm good. I got my kicks.[/quote]


Thanks for the bump and attempt though. If you actually read through those *50 Top Accomplishments" however, just becasue something was done during his presidency doesn't make it an accomplishment. Again, thatnks for the bump. :corn:

Dirtie_Frank

What should he have done? There are threats on a daily basis that come out of AQ. The Taliban just threatened Prince Harry, should he go an hide? I do not understand what people wanted the president to do? Everyone is quick to blame Bush for 9/11, should we forget to mention that Clinton had the chance to kill him during his 8 year? Should he be part of the blame as well since the training of the terrorists took part during his watch too? It wasn't like oh look Bush became the president in Jan let's attack in Sep. I do not think Gore would have done anything different had he won, I do not think Obama would have done anything different. I think shit hit the fan the security was organizing a new plan of action to get the fuck out of Dodge (Florida), once they got the all clear they popped smoke and took off.

tybird

BinauralJam wrote:

tybird wrote:

This picture makes me wonder.....who was FDR with when he first heard of the attack on Pearl Harbor....his mistress or his sea-hag of a wife?

Eleanor was having her fun on the side as well.

I have a hard time picturing Eleanor "having fun on the side"

rollings

hedonist wrote:

Who Princess wrote:

It's the anniversary of a very sad day. It was also a day when we saw some people at their finest and a day when we all felt united. It may sound naive but I wish it would be observed with respect.

Beautifully said.

(and if what you said is naive, then I suppose I am too)

I was actually looking for an image of "bush"---as in woods in Pennsylvania...when i realized that using "bush" as a search parameter would not yield the nice trees and paths I was instead looking for.

I never saw a still image of this scene before--only video. I never saw the look of panic in Bush's eyes before this. I actually intended this thread then to be where others could also post poignant pictures that they came across. It took a life of its own, which I admit, I added to.

but what you're saying is true.

I watched some footage yesterday where at the end it was noted that some 200 people jumped to their deaths that day.

Sometimes I feel that the events of 9/11 are still sinking in, because its something that just can't sink into one's psyche all at once

Who Princess

rollings wrote:

Sometimes I feel that the events of 9/11 are still sinking in, because its something that just can't sink into one's psyche all at once

To this day, I can't seem to watch footage without wanting to cry. In a strange way I think that's a good thing. People have found ways to sentimentalize 9/11 with souvenirs, posters, and such--and those things may work for some people. But I think I sometimes need those reminders of the enormity of it, even though they're hard to watch.

I wish I had more reminders of the days and weeks right after 9/11, when we all seemed to come together and people showed so much caring. People of all ages and backgrounds made simple gestures. While it didn't last, at the time it made me much more hopeful for the future.

hedonist

Those jumping, those images, and how deeply it...tore in, sunk in (for lack of a better term)...they're like tattoos - though gradual ones, as rollings mentioned.

Maybe also instantaneous ones, for those there. Right there.

I think in the end, for me, it's humbling.

Beyond.

Puts the stupid little nerfballs of life in perspective.

I know I shouldn't need those reminders, and usually don't, but sometimes they're a welcome slap in the (my) face of complacency.

Who Princess

There was a candlelight vigil here tonight at the 9/11 Flight Crew Memorial:

DS1119

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

I do not understand what people wanted the president to do? Everyone is quick to blame Bush for 9/11, should we forget to mention that Clinton had the chance to kill him during his 8 year?

Stop with the logic here! Yep, Clinton had the chance to take Osama out...the released reports confirm it...and Clinton chose not to do it. Probably would have prevented the USS Cole tragedy as well, but lets keep blaming George Bush. Lets keep making fun of a picture of a President in the middle of one of the biggest, if not the biggest, tragedies of US history. Makes perfect sense. :fp:

ComeToTX

DS1119 wrote:

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

I do not understand what people wanted the president to do? Everyone is quick to blame Bush for 9/11, should we forget to mention that Clinton had the chance to kill him during his 8 year?

Stop with the logic here! Yep, Clinton had the chance to take Osama out...the released reports confirm it...and Clinton chose not to do it. Probably would have prevented the USS Cole tragedy as well, but lets keep blaming George Bush. Lets keep making fun of a picture of a President in the middle of one of the biggest, if not the biggest, tragedies of US history. Makes perfect sense. :fp:

clinton was weak on terrorism too. so was bush sr. the picture was of W though. find a picture of clinton sitting in a classroom while our country is under attack and we'll discuss it.

DS1119

ComeToTX wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

I do not understand what people wanted the president to do? Everyone is quick to blame Bush for 9/11, should we forget to mention that Clinton had the chance to kill him during his 8 year?

Stop with the logic here! Yep, Clinton had the chance to take Osama out...the released reports confirm it...and Clinton chose not to do it. Probably would have prevented the USS Cole tragedy as well, but lets keep blaming George Bush. Lets keep making fun of a picture of a President in the middle of one of the biggest, if not the biggest, tragedies of US history. Makes perfect sense. :fp:

clinton was weak on terrorism too. so was bush sr. the picture was of W though. find a picture of clinton sitting in a classroom while our country is under attack and we'll discuss it.

No pictures of Clinton in a classroom during tragedy. He was too busy in his office with Monica. No cameras were allowed.

dustinpardue

My opinion.......the presidents schedule and location was widely publicized and the first reaction to the nation being under attack wasn't to move the president to a secure location??? Were they aware that the president wasn't a target? If not that is a pretty huge assumption and a massive gamble with the presidents life. I'm not posing any theories, just pointing out the either terrible logic of the Bush camp that day or the peculiar nature of their actions. If Bush was a target he wouldn't have been hard to find that day.