Comments Posted By andy
Displaying 231 To 240 Of 258 Comments
TURNING PLOWSHARES INTO SWORDS
Lefties and Anti-americanists around the world still don't appreciate the contribution of the US Navy in keeping international waters safe and open for global trade. We're the only country that's actively fighting piracy, which has made a comeback in recent years. We're the ones who ensure europe, China and Japan have a free and efficient flow of oil via tankers from the middle east. It was our forces that kept the flow of oil going during the Iran/Iraq war. Our military, and the stability it provides, is what makes global trade and global economics possible. It's a job that's never recognized abroad and only rarely here at home.
Comment Posted By Andy On 25.05.2006 @ 08:14
ILLINOIS KID'S BLOGS MUZZLED BY SCHOOL DISTRICT
I agree Rick. Obviously if there is something potentially criminal (threats of violence for instance) then that is one thing. But getting suspended because you call a teacher "butthead" on myspace is way over the line.
Comment Posted By Andy On 24.05.2006 @ 18:27
THE MIND BLOGGLING CONSEQUENCES OF BUSH DERANGEMENT SYNDROME
Please explain how WTC 7 fell down. Thank you.
Well, a rather large building fell on it, and it was on fire for about 7 hours. It's amazing that a building can burn that long and somehow not set those demo charges off or damage any of the wiring to the charges, isn't it?
Comment Posted By Andy On 25.05.2006 @ 14:42
Rob,
I can assure you there is better protection for the capital now. However, before 9/11, our primary concern was hijacked planes from overseas and the Soviet bomber threat. Our air defense system at the time was very good at identifying and tracking aircraft approaching our borders in a timely manner, so the aircraft at Langley had plenty of time to launch to counter that kind of threat against DC.
Comment Posted By Andy On 25.05.2006 @ 08:05
And another thing, articles such as these like to bring up links to refute conspiracy theories such as the PM “9/11 myth debunking†article as proof. However, Rick, as do others, ignore the fact that that PM article was refuted by the 9/11 cover-up community and don’t bother to address their claims that much of that PM article is hogwash. (They provide logical counter-claims and point out relevant information missing in the article)
Please don't tell me you're one of those loonies that think the towers were demo'd.
Back to the fighter issue. I've already covered most of it. There were 14 fighters on alert that day, covering the whole nation (I just looked it up). There weren't any at Andrews. I'm sure the fine men and women at Andrews were watching in horror like everyone else. But they can't simply get up and launch a plane on their own discretion, even if the planes were ready (which they were not). It would have taken them hours probably to get airborne. Why do that when alert aircraft are just down the road at Langley?
Comment Posted By Andy On 24.05.2006 @ 22:12
For instance, someone give me a logical explanation for this little tidbit: Why were fighters not scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base after the first plane hit the WTC? Think about this; those personnel at that base were likely watching the news just like all the rest of us were. Yet nobody thought to maybe get in some planes to protect the nation’s capital?
The simple reason is that the fighters weren't on alert. Unlike the movies, it takes time and planning to get a fighter to a state of readiness to launch. It takes time to arm and fuel a plane. It's not like most Air Force bases had armed and fueled fighters with pilots on alert ready to go. With the end of the cold war, we simply didn't stand many alerts. I forget the exact number, but there were only a handful of aircraft on alert to cover the entire country that day. I can tell you that things have changed in that regard.
Comment Posted By Andy On 24.05.2006 @ 21:57
Jeeze, you guys need to chill out. I was a supporter of the war then, and I still am for the most part. Yes, the administration didn't go out of their way to quash the misrepresentation. That's not particularly surprising or shocking or anything else - no administration goes out of its way to quash untruths that support its policies. That's politics. Pointing that out doesn't make me left-wing, it makes me accurate.
And to the commenters here to harrangue the left for "publishing untruth," you must have forgotten the Clinton years. The fact is both sides do it. Both sides are like little kids who point fingers at eachother and whine, "well they did it." "No, they did it first."
However, I'll agree that the left over the past 5 years has reached new lows in this regard, but to say the right is innocent is stupid. The right acts as if it has never supported a whacky conspiracy theory or assumed the worst of their political opponents without examining the facts.
Yes, some of the stuff the Bush administration put out before the war had questionable accuracy and some of the parallels they drew were stretches, and there are a few cases where it could be legitimately argued that they overemphasized certain pieces of intelligence. It's not anywhere near the level the left claims though, and Bush didn't lie. The lefty moonbats need to review their semantics and the difference in intent between lying and being incorrect.
Comment Posted By Andy On 24.05.2006 @ 17:36
No one in the Bush administration ever said there was a direct connection (except for some speculation immediately after 9/11), but they didn't go out of their way to quash that misperception either.
Comment Posted By Andy On 24.05.2006 @ 12:36
I'm going to point out the big white elephant in the room:
Basically, most people are dumb and ignorant. Even if they had the critical thinking skills, their preconceived notions and biases prevent them from using them effectively.
And Rick, the right-wing moonbattery on Clinton certainly did make it into the mainstream and even the so-called "liberal" press.
Comment Posted By Andy On 24.05.2006 @ 10:27
Rick,
Interesting story, as usual. A couple of points:
Clarice Feldman’s analysis of what happened in regard to FISA and the Moussaoui laptop are wrong according the official record. After Moussaoui was captured, the FBI wanted, obviously, to get into Moussaoui’s laptop. They could try to get a criminal warrant or a FISA order. They decided to go for the FISA order and here’s their reasoning:
In Joint Inquiry interviews, FBI Minneapolis field office agents said that FBI Headquarters advised against trying to obtain a criminal search warrant as that might prejudice subsequent efforts to obtain a FISA Court order. Under FISA, an order warrant could be obtained if the agents could establish probable cause to believe that Moussaoui was an agent of a foreign power and that he had engaged in international terrorism or was preparing to do so. FBI Headquarters was concerned that if a criminal warrant were denied and the agents then tried to obtain a FISA Court order, the FISA Court would think the agents were trying to use authority for an intelligence investigation to pursue a criminal case.
However, the FBI personnel at the field office and those at the Radical Fundamentalist Unit at FBI headquarters were ignorant of FISA procedures:
The RFU agent told Joint Inquiry staff that, based on advice he received from the NSLU, he believed that the Chechen rebels were not a “recognized†foreign power and that, even if Moussaoui were to be linked to them, the FBI could not obtain a search order under FISA. The RFU agent told the Minneapolis agents that they had to connect Moussaoui to al-Qa’ida, which he believed was a “recognized†foreign power. The Minneapolis case agent later testified before the Joint Inquiry that he had had no training in FISA, but that he believed that “we needed to identify a – and the term that was thrown around was ‘recognized foreign power’ and so that was our operational theory…As the FBI’s Deputy General Counsel would later testify, the agents were incorrect. The FBI can obtain a search warrant under FISA for an agent of any international terrorist group, including Chechen rebels. Because of this misunderstanding, the Minneapolis field office spent valuable time and resources trying to connect the Chechen group to al-Qa’ida.â€
So it wasn’t a question of oversight, it was a lack of training on FISA procedures by the FBI. The FBI goes on to make further mistakes:
“The Bureau’s focus shifted to arranging for Moussaoui’s planned deportation to France, planned for September 17. French officials had agreed to search his belongings and provide the results to the FBI. Although the FBI was no longer considering a FISA Court order, no one revisited the idea of attempting to obtain a criminal search warrant, even though the only reason for not attempting to obtain a criminal search warrant earlier – concern that it would prejudice a request under FISA – no longer existed.â€
So when Clarice Feldman states: “Federal Judge Royce Lamberth’s criticisms and investigation of the FBI official charged under FISA with preparing FISA warrant requests had essentially shut down the process in the critical pre 9/11 period. This, in fact, was the reason why the agency had not sought a warrant to view the contents of Moussaoui’s computer, a search which as we now know might have prevented 9/11.†That simply doesn’t mesh with the record. The quotes I’ve given above are directly from the joint inquiry report.
Having corrected that, I largely agree with the rest of your piece on the politicization of the CIA and intelligence in general. I would add, however, that the executive also bears responsibility since each administration has its own views of what and how intelligence should be conducted. There is a pretty clear record of how changes in administration policy affect the intelligence process, and therefore intelligence agencies. This is especially true in regard to covert action and “controversial†collection efforts. The yo-yoing effects of changing administration policies are severely detrimental to the efficient production of intelligence, not to mention covert action. Both Congress and the Executive have a very limited vision and don’t understand the long-term consequences of closing operations and programs or creating capabilities. Afghanistan in the late 80’s and early 90’s is a perfect example. Pronouncements such as “we need more human intelligence†are equally ignorant – as if were possible to create more HUMINT with the wave of a wand.
Finally, there must be oversight of intelligence operations, especially ones that operate near the line of illegality, by a branch of government separate from the executive. FISA and the Congressional intelligence committees serve those roles, though improvements are obviously necessary.
Comment Posted By Andy On 19.05.2006 @ 15:51
