Fair enough. I insinuated that title wasn't entirely accurate anyway, so here is the real title... The rest of the article is pretty informative, as well. Basically, the conclusion, based on declassified information, is that there was enough going on that certain precautions should have been taken. Many warning signs appear to have been ignored. Read it here.
you should have just been honest the first time. but thats just not the way you do things. i know what it says, i read it long ago. the title "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S" is not even news. i coulda told you that in 1998, and i dont even work for the cia. and you made up the part in the title about landmarks, but that wasnt news either after the first wtc attack in 1993. is it supposed to be suprising that terrorists attack landmarks? gee, i thought they attacked empty cornfields. bush knew bin laden wanted to attack landmarks? he shoulda prevented it! he should have personally worked the security gate at logan airport. in fact, not only should he have prevented, i will just assume he caused it. hey why not, nonsense is wonderful.
No, dude. I did not 'make it up'. I was admittedly mistaken. I know it comes as a shock to you that I'm not perfect, but I think you can learn to deal with it. You might be well-served to read that article before shooting your mouth off about how insignificant this news seemed. But thats just not how you do things. We completely ignored numerous reports of specific ongoings. And they lifted not a finger toward any preventive measures to ensure our national security. At best, this is indicative that those in command were simply unfit for their positions. At worst, it is indicative of an administration that knew such an attack was inevitable and used the imminent climate to bolster support for furthering its agenda.
the weird part is that i read that article before i responded. before you linked it. that article and three others on the subject, even though i knew already anyways. see, i do a thing where i actually dont make stuff up. it is because i dont make anything up and i actually read first, that i know you are bull****ting. lets see what else you made up: is that so? how do you know that? oh yes i remember, you make things up. carry on.
how specific. how would you know what was really done? really? so you're an expert on jobs you have no experience except there were ongoings? you have no legit basis to make such a claim. the only agenda that's clear is yours.
Newsflash: Conspiricy theories abound! FDR knew about Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but allowed it to happen. There is nothing new under the sun.
Yeah, ya know. That whole 'I am a middle easterner who wants to enroll in flight school but am only interested in flying the plane mid-flight, not landing it' couldn't have been more vague. Nothing was really done. What don't you understand about that? Such a B.S. cop-out. It is their duty to ensure national security, to heed threats and to take warnings very seriously. They did absolutely none of the above. The numerous other warnings outside of this memo from '01 are well-documented. Apparently, none of them were deemed as legitimate or urgent. The inability for them to make that distinction makes them unfit for their duties, whether you like it or not. But have it your way. If you can dismiss my claim on the grounds that I have no experience doing what they do, I don't ever want to hear you complain about another coach or athlete. Ooooohhh. Boy you really got me there, Sherlock. Only difference is, I'm not compromising the safety of others to further it.
