Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.
Published on August 28, 2007 By COL Gene In Politics


On August 24th I posted this Blog which elicited many truly asinine comments that demonstrate the hypocrisy of many who Blog on Joe User-




Bush & Rice Should be Impeached for NOT Protecting America!

The United States spends Billions of dollars each year to collect and process intelligence for one propose—To provide the President and National Security Advisor information to help defend this country from attack.

In my Blog I documented scores of such warnings provided Bush and Rice by the CIA in the six months before the 9/11 attack on our country. When I pointed out that these warnings were ignored by both Bush and Rice, many on this site defended the inaction of the President and National Security Advisor. Statements such as there was no actionable intelligence were presented. In fact the CIA warnings identified the group that was planning the attacks, they said they were near term and in some cases even identified the use of air planes as missiles that they planned to use in their attack. The only thing they did not contain was the exact date and place. Others claimed the information George Tenet presented about all the warnings was just fluff for his book. This despite those warnings were the end result of thousands of people we employed to do just want they did - providing warnings that Bush and Rice ignored. We should have saved the money and effort because the intended use of the intelligence gathered and presented to the President and his principal security advisor was IGNORED.

In addition, this intelligence and the warnings were NOT presented to the appropriate intelligence committees in Congress at the time for any needed legislative action to help protect our country. In fact the most important warning was kept secret for over 5 years. That warning was provided by the CIA Director on July 11, 2001 that said the danger was so great that the United States needed to be placed on a WAR FOOTING in order to try and prevent Bin Laden from carrying out his intended attacks on our country.

Bottom line the President and National Security Advisor failed to act on the CIA warnings and, as we all know, Bin Laden was successful in attacking our country on Sept 11, 2001. Thus all the warnings that Bush and Rice ignored and failed to provide to Congress were CORRECT! When I document this many on this Blog Site either attack me or attempt to discredit the warnings provided by the multi billion dollar intelligence agency that exists for the express purpose of providing the very information that Bush and Rice IGNORED! WHAT HYPOCRACY on the part of anyone that would defend the failure of Bush and Rice to fulfill their NUMBER ONE responsibility - the security of America!

Comments (Page 10)
11 PagesFirst 8 9 10 11 
on Sep 03, 2007
"you can't avoid a cruise missile that takes one hour to get to it's target and you have three hour notice it is on the way. why."

You can't tell me there is any way UBL knew that a missile was on the way. There is no way to intercept that kind of information, unless the person who told the CIA told UBL and AQ as well.

As I said, they were either not there, which is how I explain it, or the missile missed. Given the sophistication of the Tomahawk and the accuracy of military GPS I believe they weren't there.

I believe I can partially explain why the Predator was not entered into service armed before 9/11. First, they had issues with weapons compatibility, second, the air force is was inherently against programs which remove pilots from the cockpit, which the armed predator does. During the testing, weather gave them a lot of trouble trying to fly it. The aircraft has a low survivability rate, i.e. 53 of the 139 delivered up to March 2007 have been lost. They are cheaper then a combat fighter, and being unmanned not subject to the same scrutiny when they do lose them, but thats a huge ratio of losses, 1/3 1/4, means they need to refine the role it performs or the design.

Finally there is also mention in this wiki article about the host country not clearing them to arm the drone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RQ-1_Predator
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=122

Weapons system integration takes time to develop and test. This was pioneer stuff, mounting weapons on unmanned aircraft is a first and it never goes fast. Before 9/11 the urgency of the country, the civilian and military leadership, to develop such a weapon, just wasn't there.
on Sep 03, 2007
Dan

I believe you are correct about the issues with development time. I was not aware of the survivability rate. However, Bush did approve the use of the armed version one week after 9/11 and Tenet had been trying to get a policy decision out of Bush for almost 8 months prior to 9/11 without success.
on Sep 03, 2007
You can't tell me there is any way UBL knew that a missile was on the way. There is no way to intercept that kind of information, unless the person who told the CIA told UBL and AQ as well.


you mean you can't intercept cnn that is where i watched it for the hour of flight.
on Sep 03, 2007
Dan

I believe you are correct about the issues with development time. I was not aware of the survivability rate. However, Bush did approve the use of the armed version one week after 9/11 and Tenet had been trying to get a policy decision out of Bush for almost 8 months prior to 9/11 without success.




if bush gave the cia unsupervised use of that weapon then that was very wrong.
on Sep 03, 2007


Reply By: danielost Posted: Monday, September 03, 2007
Dan

I believe you are correct about the issues with development time. I was not aware of the survivability rate. However, Bush did approve the use of the armed version one week after 9/11 and Tenet had been trying to get a policy decision out of Bush for almost 8 months prior to 9/11 without success.




If bush gave the CIA unsupervised use of that weapon then that was very wrong.


Tenet requested use to identify and take out Bin Laden. That is not what I would call "Unsupervised use". Just more of your BS!
on Sep 04, 2007
Agreed, nothing in the military is unsupervised, we have nukes. The question is was it supervised to the level required. I'd trust the air force, who obviously was tasked to fly the damn things, to do just that, the flying. Certainly that's smarter than having guys who just finished basic, or air force pilots, or anybody not trained in MP doing MP duties at Abu Gharib.

Unsupervised, I can't believe that you are even arguing this point daniel.

"if bush gave the cia unsupervised use of that weapon then that was very wrong."

Why don't you tell us why that's wrong? Rather then just sticking one liners to us.

The predator unmanned version is a few years old now, going on a decade, the armed version, just needed testing and verification, as well as a purpose. Before 9/11 the line was Americans, are concerned but managing it. Until the towers were hit.

Gene er, colonel, it is quite clear that the support and need for a weapon able to strike, without warning, quickly, immediately, and routinely was needed before the ground war was won in Afghanistan. This weapon proved to be the predator. However, before 9/11, there was neither the perceived need, urgency or "battle tested" ability of this weapon.

Nobody goes into war fighting with untested equipment, except when Rumsfeld, say so. I.e. in the case of troops deploying without fucking body armor, or humvees without armor plating, as it proved the case, necessary, early in the post war occupation. The air force wouldn't want to make guarantees about the ability of the predator when it was untested in the field.

Development still continues of course, but there is a lot that the predator cannot do. I won't participate in any potentially treasonous discussion about capabilities but the fact remains the predator is but one piece in the air force's collection of aircraft which perform certain roles. The geography of the region make it uniquely suited but perhaps not the best equipment to use in all situations.

Certainly there are plenty of AQ who are dead because of it.

on Sep 04, 2007
"if bush gave the cia unsupervised use of that weapon then that was very wrong."

Why don't you tell us why that's wrong? Rather then just sticking one liners to us.




absolute power corrupts absolutely. thus the more unsupervised abilities you give any agency the bigger the problems will be. especilly agencies that
on Sep 04, 2007
"absolute power corrupts absolutely. thus the more unsupervised abilities you give any agency the bigger the problems will be. especilly agencies that"

Great, now prove he did give the agency absolute power. Obviously they haven't gotten Bin Ladin, and even if they had it didn't prevent 9/11. I'm not sure I can even reason or debate with you as your position doesn't make any sense at all.

on Sep 04, 2007
if he had given them unsupervised use of this weapon what would stop them from using against a president or Senate or congressmen that they felt was bad for the country.
on Sep 04, 2007
Bush did not give the authority to use the system to hunt and kill Bin Laden and his top people to anyone prior to 9/11. WHY!!!!!! Even if the system did not function all the time, it could have succeeded in locating Bin Laden and killing him and other top al Qaeda leaders. To fail to use it like Bush did prior to 9/11 INSURES it will not work to locate and kill Bin Laden!
on Sep 05, 2007
So you go from this...
"absolute power corrupts absolutely. thus the more unsupervised abilities you give any agency the bigger the problems will be. especilly agencies that"

to this...
if he had given them unsupervised use of this weapon what would stop them from using against a president or Senate or congressmen that they felt was bad for the country.

Where is the proff that he gave anybody unsupervised use of anything? As we are saying, he did not. So what's your point?
on Sep 05, 2007
Bush did not give the authority to use the system to hunt and kill Bin Laden and his top people to anyone prior to 9/11. WHY!!!!!!


Where is the proff that he gave anybody unsupervised use of anything? As we are saying, he did not. So what's your point?


on Sep 06, 2007
Lol. Oh Daniel you are a funny guy.
on Sep 08, 2007
CLINTON DID NOT KILL BIN LADEN.

WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DO TELL US, O' DELUDED ONE, WHAT ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE DID TENET KNOW IN JUNE THAT HE DIDN'T KNOW IN JANUARY? WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DIDN'T HE KNOW IT, IF HE KNEW ANYTHING NEW AT ALL, SOONER?

WHY DIDN'T WJC BRIEFLY SLIP HIS DICK OUT OF ML's MOUTH & TAKE CARE OF "OFFICIAL" BUSINESS? WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WAS OBL EVEN AROUND FOR BUSH TO DEAL WITH?

WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IS PRECIOUS OXYGEN BEING CONSUMED BY YOU FOR NO PURPOSE? WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
on Sep 09, 2007
Do get control of your ! points or I'm going to run for congress and pass a law as to using 2 or less consecutive "!" online.

Thanks!!
11 PagesFirst 8 9 10 11