🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 24 Sep 2001 11:04:27 -0400, women fainted and men gasped when
"John Gilmer" <gilmer@crosslink.net> casually remarked:

>
><01dyna@my.house> wrote in message
>news:rafuqt8nsb8jebmpegntumf2btp3980o4r@4ax.com...
>>
>> >"Fabrikant" <benny_patrick@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:7cffa2b0.0109220550.def5273@posting.google.com...
>> >> White House spokesman was asked whether US President is satisfied with
>> >> the CIA performance.  He diplomatically responded that CIA is the best
>> >> in the world.  My little brain has great difficulty understanding
>> >> this.  As far as we know, there were 4 attempts of plane hijacking,
>> >> none was prevented, so terrorists were 100% successful.  Now, presume
>> >> that CIA did not exist, and ask yourself a question: how different the
>> >> latest events would have been?  Since the terrorists could not be more
>> >> than 100% successful, the answer to the previous question is clear:
>> >> existence of CIA did not make any difference.
>> >
>>
>>
>> ..you have absolutely *no* idea what  you're talking about.  Having
>> worked in the Govt for anti-terrorism, I can tell you that threats
>> significantly worse than what happened were prevented.  If the
>> American people ever knew how big a threat terrorism really is and
>> has been we'd have panic in the streets worse than a Godzilla movie.
>
>Sure.   Now go and catch up on your medication.

...cheap shot..very cheap...how come that doesn't surprise me?

>
>> The war on terrorism has been going on for a very long time.  You
>> think that America, the biggest and one of the easiest targets for
>> terrorism wouldn't of suffered much sooner than this if the FBI, CIA,
>> NSA and INTERPOL and well as other law enforcement and intelligence
>> agencies haven't been working their butts off so you can go to
>> sleep at night without a grenade blowing your ass halfway across
>> the street?
>
>Un huh.   And yet the man responsible for this attack is well know and has
>been well known for his financing anti-American terror for over 10 years.
>Yet he is still around?  Frankly, that doesn't say much for ANY of these
>alphabet agencies.

..the problem that we've had with Osama is that he's harbored in a
country that we do not have diplomatic ties with.  And unlike
terrorists, we cannot sanction (at least not yet) assassinations.  Nor
can we organize a task force to extricate him from Afghanistan, Iran,
Iraq or any other country that we don't have ties with.  If we did,
and did so without UN approval, we would end up looking just as bad
as the terrorists.  Also, the bleeding heart liberals in this country
would bleat on an on about us "storming" another country without the
approval of the offending country.  Unfortunately, we have to play
according to international law, until now...when we have defined it as
"war".  But even now, we are
moving forward only with international approval no matter how much
our government wants us to think that we're going to go storm trooping
in and get Osama.


>
>>
>> The government *cannot* stop every terrorist attack.  Terrorists are
>> shewed, their resources vast and they have absolutely no conscience.
>
>The ones with "vast" resources are either associated with hostile
>governments or with rich individuals with tacit support of ambivalent
>governments (like Saudi Arabia).
>
>The 911 attacks took a LOT of support and handholding.

..you right...a tremendous amount of money.  Money that doesn't have
to be approved by any government.  They are not restricted by laws,
regulations or international law.  It's an unfair playing field.

>
>> Additionally, the American people didn't *want* to spend tons of money
>> on anti-terrorism...our NIMBY
>> attitude has, unfortunately led to this.  Now we're all screaming to
>> spend more money and to be protected from such heinous acts, yet
>> when we could of used the money and resources to possibly prevent
>> this, no one wanted to agree to spend the money that was needed
>> to get the job done.
>
>You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth.   If the CIA et. al.
>were doing a good job then they already had the needed resources.

..and they would if they didn't have their funding cut.  Throughout
the previous administration, the budgets of both the FBI, CIA and NSA
have been cut *drastically* yet the need for additional resources
continue to rise.  With the new infusion of funding that Congress has
approved, I hope that we can fight terrorism significantly better than
we did in the past.  However, it won't change overnight.  I believe it
will still take several years to get up to speed where we should be
today.

>
>>
>> I'm not blaming the American people for what happened...clearly the
>> blame lies directly on the shoulders on those that committed this
>> horrendous act of terrorism.  However, to blame the folks that work
>> around the clock trying to keep our soil safe from these attacks,
>> especially when they aren't allowed to discuss their successes, is
>> a cheap shot and they don't deserve it.
>
>It's not a cheap shot.   they were our shield and they failed.   If they
>didn't have the resources they needed at the minimum their high executives
>should have taken the opportunity to blow the whistle when it came time for
>any of them to retire.   It they did, I didn't hear it.

...you don't hear a lot about how those agencies work.  Mainly for
security concerns.  The budgets for some of the agencies, as well as
specific projects are classified.  They *did* scream for more funding,
and justifiably so, but previous administrations wouldn't hear it.
Our methodology has typically been reactionary.  It's only when
something happens that everyone runs around trying to point the finger
at who dropped the ball and start throwing money in hopes that will
solve the problem. 

Like I said, the typical reaction is that when something happens, as
what happened at the WTC and the Pentagon (and almost the White
House), is "how could this happen?  Why didn't you prevent this?".
When in reality, these agencies work around the clock preventing
MANY similar situations.  They can't stop every possibility, there
just isn't the resources, and Americans won't tolerate a police state
to prevent something that *might* happen.  Should we of known more
about this attack before it happened?  Absolutely, but until now, no
one wanted to foot the bill that it would cost.  The *billions* that
have and will be spent just on this incident alone could of easily
financed an effective anti-terrorism network but we couldn't  equip
our military into a effective fighting force, how do you think the
American
people and consequently Congress would react to a proposal to
spend several hundred million on something that most Americans
feel, until now,  someone elses problem?


cheers,
-aki

01 FXDWG
AMA Lifemember...
DoD#0628...
HOG,MANS etc etc.