Government Intelligence
onelongsong
Posts: 3,517
can someone explain what intelligence the government is suppose to act on? many here have said that the government knew about 9/11 through intelligence but did nothing to stop it. they claim the government should have acted. in another thread the same people are complaining that government intelligence said iraq had WMD but it was wrong for the government to act on that intelligence.
so my question is; when should the government act?
so my question is; when should the government act?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
When I say so.
the intelligence agencies drastically changed after 9/11. for example the FBI and CIA rarely communicated with each other. smart huh?
as for WMDs, who knows. tenat said it was a slam dunk. he is s dumbass.
hopefully our intelligence agencies are evolving.
How about using it well. Having info and then 911 goes down, well makes you look stupid. Faking info on WMD and still being in a nation and destroying it after so many years makes you look like a bully, an idiot and a few other choice words I will leave to your imagination. Maybe those bad people on 911 were using intel they had that thought the States had plans to go into Iraq in the towers and wanted to destroy those before Iraq got destroyed. Ah yeah, intel and when to act on it. It boils down to what you act on, not how you react.
we knew the towers would be attacked again in 1993 when the first attempt failed. i'm not sure where everyone was during the elections but anyone paying attention knew that we were going into iraq if iraq didn't allow inspections. the iraq war was on the table long before 9/11.
the 9/11 attacks were in the works while clinton was president. so let's say gore was president; what could he have done differently? what actions would have been acceptable to the people? i keep asking this question using different words and different examples yet not one person has an answer. it's always easy to look at an event in hindsight and find a better way to handle the situation. why not this time?
this leads me to believe that government should do whatever they want. the people don't know what they want and they won't agree with anything you do anyway. those who claim iraq is because of oil are also the ones that bitch like hell when gas goes up 10 cents/gallon.
i'm only trying to understand what the people want.
on the other hand; let's say we ignored the WMD intel and didn't attack iraq. then; months later saddam exploded a WMD in miami. would public opinion be:
well; we didn't have enough proof; or would we blame the president for not acting on the intel we had?
bush would get blamed for sure. how can he not. it was never in doubt that he had them. he used them against Iran and the kurds.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Maybe i have bad memory, but wasn't it BUSH who did not allow the inspectors to do their job? I believe Saddam WAS complying, and that Bush just said "nah fuck that! everyone out! we're dropping bombs, nigga!"
Anyway, to the original poster:
I think the short answer is,
the government should 'act' when the government has specific and verifiable evidence of a threat of immediate nature
Here is the thing.
The public should distrust anything coming from the mouth of an intelligence agency head when it serves the agenda of the administrative branch. Why? The president has the explicit (and, imho, unfortunate) power of appointed the heads of CIA and FBI (and most other high level department positions).
So, if Bush is itching for war, and the heads of CIA and FBI come out and say "hell yeah. we have proof" ... be skeptical.
Now.
Back to the question, what should they act on ...
In the case of WMDs, i'm not really sure what intelligence they had, but the administration was widely accused, from within the intelligence community of "data mining" ... or specificaly searching for or exclusively using only the very few intelligence pieces that support their conclusion, but ignoring all the ones that contradict their position.
The only thing the public saw were old black and white satelitte photos of "suspected weapons sites" and that debunked crap about mobile weapons labs ...
... if the government truly had other verifiable sources of merit to confirm their suspicions, maybe the war was just a big intelligence blunder.
ON THE OTHER HAND
regarding 911, i find the inaction inexcusable.
This is a situation where branches of our intelligence were acutely aware of specific threats and enemy operations that were setting off red flags at the staff level.
What do i mean?
I mean we were actively tracking some of these hijackers right here in america. We had FBI agents sending letters to commanding officers warning of terrorist operatives who were taking classes at florida flight schools, and we had letters warning that OBL wanted to use hijacked planes as missles against sensitive targets on american soil.
We had FBI operatives who had put these two togeather, who were actively seeking permission to investigate and to warn public officials more explicitly. Hell, even Bush & his cabinet were briefed on some of this shit ... Here is some of what i'm talking about. Intelligence was STOPPED BEFORE IT COULD ACT.
to me that IS a situation where inaction is 100% inexcusable ... ask yourself why officials were allowed to start a war based on arguably lesser intelligence, but completely failed to act in a basic manner to ramp up security proceedures on american soil in the face of such startling, alarming, and clearly immediate warnings?
This was a matter of clear and present danger, and the government did nothing -- absolutely nothing!
That, to me, is a huge red flag, saying "COMPLICIT. COMPLICIT. C-O-M-P-L-I-C-I-T" or, if you aren't very familiar with some of these people (bush, cheney, rumsfeld, wolfowitz, condoleeza, etc) you may be thinking "NITWIT. NITWIT. N-I-T-W-I-T" ... but i'm telling you none of those folks are stupid. They are incredibly, disturblingly intelligent AND misguided (ok. bush may not be the brightest tool, but he does has the drive and mindset needed for a lot of this to take place, and so many loved his father, he was a natural choice to put on the pulpit for this one) ...
... they have such a firm belief in their richeousness and their view of the need for "energy security" (not to mention an alarming amount of personal motive -- most all of them are huge oil industry vets with active ties to such) and for a need to be in the middle east that they probably didn't see much alternative ... to them this was an "out", as good a reason as they would ever get to act on what they saw as an immediate and pressing need to have a stronger presence in the middle east ...
given all that, do you think it was sheer incompetence, or do you think that the people at the top knew what was really going on, and were content to sit and wait to reform agency processes until AFTER a catastrophic "new pearl harbor" so that they could start pumping up the war funding and the war itself?
I dunno.
I think i answered the question and THEN some, though.
and i still think it's extremely fishy that all those hijackers were from Saudi Goddamn Arabia, and not Afghanistan, or Iraq.
Wouldn't you think we would be all the fuck over SArabia for that? Does that make any sense to anyone here?
Look at what we are trying to do with Iran right now. We don't even have explicit proof they are harboring terrorist orginazations.
But we have like 17 or so dead hijackers from Saudi Arabia. GUH? !??!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
at the time i had high government clearence and i never heard half of what you're saying. you did a good job of completely avoiding the question though.
WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE?
a simple answer will do. should i make it multiple choice for you? ok:
a) forget the constitution and start arresting people before they commit a crime?
b) start shooting down commercial airliners as soon as their transponders are turned off?
c) arrest people we THINK might commit a crime in the future?
d) admit that our immigration and traveling policies are greatly flawed and they allowed the terrorists access to do this?
e) (your idea)
your so sure of 9/11 being an inside job. if it was; it took great minds to orchestrate. if 9/11 was such a great coverup; don't you think those same minds would have planted WMD in iraq? something to think about.
Man, i don't know what to tell you here. Sounds like you are proving my point that high level officials could have quashed an investigation before it begain. Again, what is your opinion on this?
I'm sorry, i must have misread the original question.
:rolleyes:
This is what i saw:
and my specific, italicized answer was:
Okay. New question. Fair enough.
Simple: Maybe the government should have allowed the staff of its Federal Bureau of Investigation to follow up on their casework involving known terror suspects that were carrying out training in flight schools, with the knowledge that Osama Bin Laden was intent on using planes as weapons as well ...
...let me make this real clear ... we knew they were in the country ... we knew planes were to be used as weapons ... we knew operatives were training at florida flight schools ... some FBI agents put two and two togeather ... the excecutive branch had knowledge ... would you believe Dan Rathers? ... fast forward that to 4 minute mark ... what does it take !?!
So. Do the math. We knew the operatives were here. We knew the plan. We had concrete evidence that they were here and were training for such a mission ... why wasn't the FBI allowed to simply bust these assholes?
Mohammed Attah And The Venice Flying Circus ... still confused?
I still don't understand why you get all up in arms.
You asked a question, and i answered it honestly and to the best of my ability. Instead of just responding with a contrary opinion or with discussion you get all pissy and start ranting about how i'm a shmuck avoiding the question.
:(
If I opened it now would you not understand?
i was never a high ranking anything but i can't assume what someone else knew. the fact is; there are still opperatives in this country; there are still real threats. as soon as we let our guard down; there'll be another attack.
we know this. what should be done about it?
we know this or are we speculating it is a possibility considering what has happened in the past?
if one has irrefutable evidence that such an attack is going to happen again then one must act. that goes without saying.
but if one holds the opinion that there are 'real' threats simply because it happened once therefore it can happen again, then what can you do?
one would have to first ask how is it known that there are real threats? who is the source of this information. do they have an agenda by providing it? is this information reliable?
i pity a country that feels the need to remain in a constant state of high alert.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
but our defenses work so much better now!
:rolleyes:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
When Clinton was president he attempted to assassinate Bin Laden. His National Security Council was making a coordinated attempt to push information up the organizations. Clinton set antiterrorism legislation to a Republican congress where it failed to pass. Clinton was involved in middle east peace inititives. Clinton read his presidential daily briefings.
Prior to 9-11 there were congressional letters to the Bush White House complaining about not focusing on possible terrorist threats. Bush demoted Richard Clark. Cheney's phantom terrorism task force never met. His energy task force did meet though, as part of Iraq war planning.
National security prioritys under Bush were refocused onto the star wars missle defense shield.
They were busy pandering to their base of Jesus folk and bigots. They were busy advancing private interests, not the public interest.
ha ha....Soooooooooooooo, then you would agree that the 911 attacks were warranted to try and stop the States from meddling in other countries the way they do. And with their intelligence that they lack, decided to go back and bomb their way to friendship and peace. You are right we all agree to disagree about what should be done with intel, but I think that most of us can agree that bombing the wrong country and then being able to talk your people into a belief that was wrong is commical to say the least.