The Liberal Gun Club Forum

We just had the anniversary of the largest intelligence fuck up in history, 9/11. Congress created the DNI position that was supposed to remedy the infighting and lack of coordination and we have the current fuck up with Afghanistan intelligence.

There is the old oxymoron of Military Intelligence. Somebody took information and with the Orange Turd in office tailored it to meet his expectations. It was give the boss what he wants, not what he needs. TFG just want what he saw through his Orange shit stained glasses.

What is so sad is the whole topic of H. R. McMaster's thesis and book was on just that subject.

Sadly, we can't even say he didn't read the book.

highdesert wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 10:01 am We just had the anniversary of the largest intelligence fuck up in history, 9/11. Congress created the DNI position that was supposed to remedy the infighting and lack of coordination and we have the current fuck up with Afghanistan intelligence.

I like to remind people that
A) The Clinton team stressed to the Bush team the danger of terrorism. They laughed it off as Clinton's attempt to divert attention from the impeachment.
B) On Sept 10, 2001, the day before, AG Ashcroft cut the FBI's anti-Terrorism budget by $52 million.
C) The fuck-up was the Bush gang's failure and refusal to LISTEN to the warnings they were given.

Pretty hard to put it all at Bush's feet; he certainly didn't help matters at all. But the lion's share for AQ goes to the CIA and their inability to share intelligence. Still a problem, just not as much of a problem.

The FBI that was almost totally focused on law enforcement, counter terrorism was a very small part of their operation. And the infighting with the CIA and not sharing intelligence, it was problem that had been going on for years. Don't forget the first bombing of the World Trade Center was in 1993 and the bombings of the US embassies in Africa in 1998, no one connected the dots.

Richard Clarke who worked in the Bush WH on National Security as a counter terrorism expert, but also worked in the Clinton WH. It's from Clarke that we know of the lackadaisical attitude inside the Bush WH towards terrorism.

We had a very long list of things, systems, that were vulnerable because no one in the United States had seriously considered security from terrorist attacks.

https://www.npr.org/2021/09/09/10354368 ... -on-terror

The FBI is basically law enforcement, during WWII they got involved in counter espionage and then there was the Cold War and the nuclear spies. Other countries have different models which Congress looked at, Britain since around WWI has had the Security Service (MI-5) which is an internal spy agency. They aren't cops, they have no arrest powers they just collect intelligence and any arrests are made by the Met's SCO-15 counterterrorism or a regional police agency. It was rejected and Mueller shifted 2,000 agents into counterterrorism.

YankeeTarheel wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 5:11 pm

highdesert wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 10:01 am We just had the anniversary of the largest intelligence fuck up in history, 9/11. Congress created the DNI position that was supposed to remedy the infighting and lack of coordination and we have the current fuck up with Afghanistan intelligence.

I like to remind people that
A) The Clinton team stressed to the Bush team the danger of terrorism. They laughed it off as Clinton's attempt to divert attention from the impeachment.
B) On Sept 10, 2001, the day before, AG Ashcroft cut the FBI's anti-Terrorism budget by $52 million.
C) The fuck-up was the Bush gang's failure and refusal to LISTEN to the warnings they were given.

Nailed it!! Totally asleep at the wheel.

Just remember Bush, both daddy and son along with Dick Cheney were more interested in controlling and maintaining the flow of oil and the profit. So they would ignore anything that might disrupt that flow.

Took the son 6 years to figure that Cheney's interests weren't the same as his, and Darth would clear put his own agenda ahead of the President's. Bush couldn't fire Cheney, but he could make him irrelevant.

Richard Clarke, a counterterrorism expert in the Clinton WH and the Bush WH, has talked about the Bush administration not taking the terrorism threat seriously until 9/11 happened. After the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 and the bombings of our embassies in East Africa in 1998 and the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, even Clinton's FBI and CIA didn't connect the dots of Al Queda involvement leading up to 9/11.

highdesert wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:34 am Richard Clarke, a counterterrorism expert in the Clinton WH and the Bush WH, has talked about the Bush administration not taking the terrorism threat seriously until 9/11 happened. After the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 and the bombings of our embassies in East Africa in 1998 and the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, even Clinton's FBI and CIA didn't connect the dots of Al Queda involvement leading up to 9/11.

I'll go to my grave believing that had Gore been elected there was a good chance 9/11 may have been prevented or scaled back and we damned sure wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq. Afghanistan war would have happened in the aftermath of 9/11 regardless but stopped short of nation building and probably 15 years or so shorter. I don't like playing "what if's", but GWB truly screwed the pooch, before, during and after 9/11. IMHO.

highdesert wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:34 am Richard Clarke, a counterterrorism expert in the Clinton WH and the Bush WH, has talked about the Bush administration not taking the terrorism threat seriously until 9/11 happened. After the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 and the bombings of our embassies in East Africa in 1998 and the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, even Clinton's FBI and CIA didn't connect the dots of Al Queda involvement leading up to 9/11.

Anyone who was an adult and a follower of the (non-Fox) news then knew that Bush&Co came in having TOTALLY disparaged the terrorism warnings of the Clinton team, and that they continued to belittle it all through the winter of 2000/2001, and the spring and summer of 2001, up through Monday, Sept 10th, when Ashcroft cut the FBI's terrorism budget to practically nothing.

Meanwhile, the revelations the Milley made sure that any kind of attack Trump might consider launching against China, given that Trump had attempted to overturn the election violently, has called all the usual thralls to call Milley a traitor and demand his firing. This has backfired on them BECAUSE it's allowing Biden and the Biden team to a) Express the President's confidence in Milley, and b) bring Trump's incitement of the Jan 6 riot back to the forefront and how Trump was attempting a coup d'etat and Milley courageously took steps to prevent that.

Wino wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:53 am

highdesert wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:34 am Richard Clarke, a counterterrorism expert in the Clinton WH and the Bush WH, has talked about the Bush administration not taking the terrorism threat seriously until 9/11 happened. After the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 and the bombings of our embassies in East Africa in 1998 and the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, even Clinton's FBI and CIA didn't connect the dots of Al Queda involvement leading up to 9/11.

I'll go to my grave believing that had Gore been elected there was a good chance 9/11 may have been prevented or scaled back and we damned sure wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq. Afghanistan war would have happened in the aftermath of 9/11 regardless but stopped short of nation building and probably 15 years or so shorter. I don't like playing "what if's", but GWB truly screwed the pooch, before, during and after 9/11. IMHO.

I don't know about 9/11 in that scenario, but we would NOT have attacked Iraq. Remember: The Afghan campaign had the Taliban and Al Qaeda on the run when, in 2002, Bush cut the feet out from under the military on the ground there, pulling personnel and materiel out to use in the attack. He undermined the Afghan effort at probably the WORST possible moment.

As for the SCOTUS, yet again violating States' Rights for political convenience, Thomas should have recused as his wife was vetting candidates for Bush's appointment. Scalia and Rehnquist had adult children working of the Republicans, and Sandra Day O'Conner was overheard at a party saying she couldn't abide the THOUGHT of Gore as President. The SCOTUS didn't even act so cavalierly in Hayes vs Tilden in 1876!

YankeeTarheel wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 11:02 am
As for the SCOTUS, yet again violating States' Rights for political convenience, Thomas should have recused as his wife was vetting candidates for Bush's appointment. Scalia and Rehnquist had adult children working of the Republicans, and Sandra Day O'Conner was overheard at a party saying she couldn't abide the THOUGHT of Gore as President. The SCOTUS didn't even act so cavalierly in Hayes vs Tilden in 1876!

Incidentally, Bush v Gore is when I became a gun owner.
It was my first realization that the government and the courts were not always looking out for the people and unrestrained power probably wasn't the best idea (was still pretty young and only sorta politically conscious). That personal decision has been confirmed as sound by many events since, but that was the event that turned me from 2A agnostic to active believer of the entire bill of rights.

featureless wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 11:21 am

YankeeTarheel wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 11:02 am
As for the SCOTUS, yet again violating States' Rights for political convenience, Thomas should have recused as his wife was vetting candidates for Bush's appointment. Scalia and Rehnquist had adult children working of the Republicans, and Sandra Day O'Conner was overheard at a party saying she couldn't abide the THOUGHT of Gore as President. The SCOTUS didn't even act so cavalierly in Hayes vs Tilden in 1876!

Incidentally, Bush v Gore is when I became a gun owner.
It was my first realization that the government and the courts were not always looking out for the people and unrestrained power probably wasn't the best idea (was still pretty young and only sorta politically conscious). That personal decision has been confirmed as sound by many events since, but that was the event that turned me from 2A agnostic to active believer of the entire bill of rights.

It was the time of Bush/Gore when the Big Lie Machine of Faux News really cranked up with the like of Sean Hannity and other so called news programs.

Someone needs to review their Constitution.

Article III Section 3 wrote:Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Fun facts - nobody has ever been executed for treason against the United States of America during peacetime, and only one person during the Civil War. Joseph Smith, of Mormon fame, was murdered in jail while awaiting trial for treason against the state of Illinois, and was charged with treason in Missouri as well, but escaped. The other big case you might remember from history class involved a certain raid on Harper's Ferry.

It's almost like the standard for trial and conviction involves insurrection?

For me Bush vs Gore pointed out how much power one state can have in a presidential election. Republicans brought in their goon squad and Democrats with their hanging chads milked a situation that they had already lost. In hind sight it was like the nomination of Kavanaugh, Democrats were trying to avoid the inevitable. Political theatre at the highest level.