Honestly, getting back to the title of the thread, the only thing I need to know about the 9/11 hearings is that the FBI and the CIA both had their collective heads up their rear and that's why it happened. The factual information was in the actual possession of FBI field agents that, if acted upon, could have led to the apprehension of the hijackers well in advance of the attack. Since they all had fake papers and some were already wanted, they would have all gone to jail for a very long time.

To blame either Bush or Clinton is just not right. Ramsi Youseff had the plans (planes into skyscrapers) when he was aprehended in the Phillipines in the early 90s. Al Queda tried to level the WTC in 1993. Had they been successful then, would you blame Clinton? Honestly, tw, I suspect you would blame Bush, Sr.

I don't mind that you hate Bush. I really don't - there's lots not to like about the guy for some people. But this dot-connecting stuff is just over the top for me. For every stupid thing that happened while Bush was in the White House, there were stupid things that happened while Clinton was in the White House. As much as I dislike Clinton, I would never hold him or any single person responsible for such a tragedy.

You want to blame someone? Blame bin Laden. We had a long time to neutralize him and we failed to act. Not Bush, not Clinton, we, as a country, failed to take care of business and we bloody paid for it.

Responsibility changes with each person's perspective. It is the responsibility of bin Laden to not attack other people. That is completely irrelevant to a president's responsibilities. It is the president's responsibility to stop bin Laden's of this world. To "swat flies". George Sr. did that. Clinton did that multiple times. George Jr even had information that an attack was immenent and George Jr did nothing. No other president was that negligent. George Jr did nothing. So we blame bin Laden for George Jr doing nothing?

Why not blame the victims for their own death? Using logic that blames bin Laden, then we can also blame the victims for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Information that an attack was imment was on the president's desk on 6 Aug 2001 - first thing in the morning. He did nothing when any responsible person would have 'shaken the trees'. We also know this to be fact. This president has preconceived agendas. Anti-terrorism was a Clinton thing - and Clinton was always wrong. Best to do nothing.

George Jr's agenda to protect US from terrorism was the anti-ballistic missile system. Do you remember those days? George Carlin (famous comedian) described George Jr's defense system. Row a boat up to Manhatten, throw a biological weapon on the dock. Row out of NY harbor. George Jr's protection from these terrorists was the anti-ballistic missile system. That's it.

Repeated question by one member in the 911 Commission was never answered because there is no answer. He kept repeatedly asking for just one attempt by the George Jr administration to stop terrorism. None. Repeatedly he kept asking for one simple example where the George jr administration just once tried to stop terrorist - where one fly was swatted. Not one attempt is listed. George Jr did not even try to plan an attack on terrorism.

During the George Jr administration, it was proven that Al Qaeda had performed the USS Cole attack. Why did we not attack in response to that attack? George Jr could not be bothered.

OK Beestie - you do it. Please cite one attempt by the George Jr administration to "swat a fly" before 11 September. The answer is none. They did not even attack in response to the USS Cole bombing. They did not even have principles meetings on the subject. Instead they even force this nation's number one expert on terrorism to resign. Why kill the messenger because he was only telling a truth? Damning fact. Where in all this do we blame bin Laden? bin Laden was not negligent in his duties. George Jr was.

Even when a specific terrorism act is on the president's desk 36 days in advance - George Jr does nothing - zero - nada. He does not even ask questions. Pray tell - where is that something we should blame on bin Laden? Why avoid the issue? bin Laden did not make George Jr ignore terrorist warmings. Only George Jr ignored the warnings. He did nothing. He never once even tried to 'swat a fly'. For that we blame bin Laden? That is called silly spin - to avoid a hard fact of presidential negligence.

We did not ignore the threats of terrorism. As the George Jr pushed an anti-missile defense system to protect from terrorism, the we s out here were saying this is nonsense, a lie, wrong headed, too much money for a threat that does not exist, and that the system does not work. The only people promoting nonsense while - as we now know - he would not even swat flies is George Jr. We worried about reality. But we foolishly elected a president who cannot be bothered by facts and reality. Please show me where that anti-ballistic missile system would have protected the WTC - as George Jr claims?

Even worse, we now know that other WEs were warning of an impending attack. They - the mental midget president - could not be bothered to even ask questions - let alone even try to discover or expose the impending attack. WE did our job by voicing obvious concern for stupidity in the presidency. But the president proved himself righteous - and never even bothered to 'swat flies' reported even on his desk on 6 Aug or as proven to be the attackers of the USS Cole.

Did you hear Conduleezza Rice? They could not even be bothered to attack in response to the USS Cole bombing because a revenge attack on bin Laden and his terrorist camps would only encourage Al Qaeda. WE are saying this is nonsense whereby the president justifies his negligence. He instead did nothing. He did not even try to avenge the Cole!!! Where, pray tell, do we blame bin Laden for such negligence?

Re: Re: the only thing you need to know about the 911 hearings
 

Who has a short memory?

What is the problem?

The US let the 911 terrorists in the country, The US trained them in pilot skills, the US let them through airport security systems, the US failed to track them as terrorists despite warnings from European and Muslim countries.

If I want to come to the US I have to go through a stringent check which will involve me in having to go to the US embassy in London to obtain a Visa in person and stand in a queue for hours. I am an honest upright taxpaying british citizen. Your country is treating me and my compatriots like criminals. Your country will take my fingerprints when I enter even though we are your allies. Many of my friends have youngsters serving in Iraq . ON YOUR BEHALF> My family were going to do the Disney thing in America this year but I will not go there. I will spend my money in Europe.

If I was an Arab terrorist I could enter the US without all the shit I'd just need to ask to train as a pilot.who doesn't want to land However as a tourist who wants to go to Disney, or the Canyon, New York, Alcatraz, etc I get shit and am asked what colour my pee is


But then I have a freakin short memory.

Re: Re: Re: the only thing you need to know about the 911 hearings
 

British citizens do not require visas to enter the US.

You will, however, be subjected to the US fingerprint-and-photo routine, which is providing employment to countless ex-cops, ex-security guards, and ex-concentration camp-guards.

Re: Re: Re: the only thing you need to know about the 911 hearings
 

You do that. Try Spain. It's safe in Spain, right? They thought so too.

Yeah. Wanna know why Tony Blair jumped on board the US bandwagon again? Because of all the help Yanks give the Brits on a DAILY basis. Count how many US Air Force Bases and how many BRITS they employ and what US forces do for the economy? How many Yanks visit London every year? Scotland?

So quit with the quips about how the US gives the UK nothing, because that's bullshit too.


That's bullshit, and I know that from first hand experience, as I'm sure Radar does. People who are on the US Govt's "partner" list gets in without a Visa.

Here's a list. Check the bottom.
Countries in the Visa Waiver Program:
Andorra
Austria
Australia
Belgium
Brunei
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Monaco
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
San Marino
Singapore
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom (For citizens with the unrestricted right of permanent abode in England Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.)

(This information is from this link

So basically, you don't know what you're talking about.

Actually for those people who DO require a visa (which you don't) it is a lengthy process just to get a VISITOR visa, but not impossible. Let's say you're from Croatia. You have to provide 6 months of job history or school attendance, and/or have 6 months of wages (minimum rate) in the bank that you can't touch while you're in the US, and if you're a male, you have to show your mandatory military service discharge form. You also need a physical examination including blood work, to make sure you don't have a contagious disease, (AIDS, HIV) or if you do, you have to provide evidence that you have an American Doctor waiting for your arrival and have a shitload more money in the bank (different account) to cover expenses.

I know because I tried getting a male croatian friend over for 3 months. I had to sponsor him in, which meant I had to have a fulltime job earning at least minimum wage, and not have been on any type of federal or state assistance in the last 6 months (other than school loans).

That's just to go to disneyland.

So come back when you know what you are talking about.


No, you're just clueless.

Last time I heard, the US will requires Visas of all nations that cannot comply with new requirements set forth by the US. That means British citizens now must get visas to enter the US.

But it even gets worse. Large numbers of high tech conferences are now moving out of the US due to the so restrictive and excessive requirements imposed even on citizens of allied nations. This means less innovation at home AND this means the major source of American scientists and engineers (the innovators) has now been obstructed. IEEE Spectrum was particularly blunt about this trend.

There really was no shortage of information reporting on which terrorists were entering the country. There was a shortage of tools to connect existing information with those terrorists. Hell. FBI agents were not even permitted to have necessary computers in their offices! But then the list of failures directly traceable to the FBI is so long and in virtually every section of the FBI from internal security, to hostage rescue, to the FBI labs faking data, and to even obstruting John O'Neill - their #1 man on terrorism.

For example, John O'Neill had the names of two well know terrorists who had attacked the USS Cole. The CIA had those same names as being in the US for months. Because of numerous problems directly traceable to top management, no one - the patriots also known as the little people - were permitted to connect the dots. Even US Ambassador to Yemen - Barbara Bodine - impeded an investigation that had almost exposed the WTC attack months in advance.

So now we must give the government a list of every book you borrow from the library - only because some top government officials were too political and too technically naive to do their job? Yes. Ashcroft cannot admit his office is the problem. In his mind, we are the problem. We citizens of the US cannot even be trusted to read the right books.

America must even subject foreign friends to bureaucracy only because the current administration wants a Fatherland Security network and its justification - Patriot Acts. Yes, most nations in OynxCougar's list must now issue Visas because they cannot comply with the "we fear" list of requirements.

Dotser is right to complain. He is a citizen of a Nato nation. In security, Nato citizens once were top notch, most trusted foreign visitors. If a sibling marries someone from a non-Nato country, then a Secret security clearance was denied. Should that sibling marry into a Nato country, then no problem with a security clearance. That was once how it was when our allies were also trusted friends.

But this nation - as even The Economist noted on their front cover - would tramble on basic civil rights and think nothing of it. No surprise that Dotser must tell Americans what their nation is doing. Americans do not even know this. Too much Rush Limbaugh and Fox News means no honest facts in America. Americans have so little knowledge of the world as to even think foreigners were always envious of America to the point of hating Americans. Again, they misguided Americans spent too much time listening the the drug addict and money launderer Limbaugh. No wonder so many Americans still think (as Bush implied in his news conference) that Daniel Pearl was another reasons to attack Saddam and Iraq.

For those who still don't know, Daniel Pearl was killed due to events in Afghanistan during his investigations into Al Qaeda. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq. But there is now great mistrust even of British citizens.

"Currently" but not necessarily when Dotster was seeking entrance into America. From that link: IOW Dotster either needed a new passport that Britian could not create ... or he had to apply for a Visa. Either way, he had to stand in long lines. Later, Secretary of State suspended these requirements because Britian and many other nations could not comply with these new American requirements.

Will these new passports solve the problem? Problem is a government that had plenty of information even about the WTC attacks - all without these restrictions - and still top management refused to let the workers connect the dots - discover the attacks months before 11 September.

Dotster's complain by itself is but a symptom of a much larger problem. Will a big and new layers of bureaucracy - ie. Office of Fatherland Security and Patriot Act - solve the original problem? Dotster did not post incorrectly. Since then, apparently the rules changed - but again.

Dotster is wrong about one thing though. Even pilots are now going elsewhere to learn their skill. America has even made an education in America substantically difficult.

Completely irrelevant is when Dotster tried to come to America.

Dotster was refering to a problem that was also reported by international press. I was not aware that the Secretary of State recinded Visa requirements, nor did I realize those requirements did get implemented.

But Dotster demonstrates a problem. We Americans are now so paranoid (due to an administration that will lie - like Nixon - to promote their agenda) as to demand these new passports even from our closest friends. Yes - if you have been listenting to world citizens, then what Dotster complains about has been widely discussed. Just another fact that says America has so changed for the worst. My god. Just look at how UT's posts have even changed - from Libertarian to hard line conservative. To promote those aluminum tubes even when advanced physics labs (ie Sandia) said tubes were not appropirate for use in centrifuges. Don't believe this? See the Union for Concerned Scientist report at www.ucsusa.org. Even UT ignored science to promote this president's agenda of fear.

Dotster. I hope your countrymen are reading this because I am talking about what has changed, in only a few short years, inside of America.

After reality proved these nonsense 'high tech' passports could not be accomplished (because the paranoid leaders failed to do their homework), only then do we Americans change the rules - again. Right there in OnyxCougar's citation - the Secretary of State changes the rules - again. Why were rules created when they could not be accomplished? And why do we so fear even British citizens?

I don't agree with everything that Dotster complains about. But the one important point he demonstrates is how paranoid this current administration - and some members of the Cellar - have become. We promote big bureacracy solutions rather than fixing defective top management. Number one problem: top management, moreso today than ever bofore, does not come from the field - where the work gets done. That traditionally has been the source of anti-American behavior.

Dotster is correct to complain, but fails to understand why. All this nonsense about electronically readable passports ignores that top 'George Jr' management remain a problem. Hell, at least three - and maybe more - Presidential Daily Briefings have been uncovered by the 911 Commission. Everyone was hidden by this 'we fear' administration because PDBs warned about what became 11 September.

Dotster's complaint is but the tip of an iceberg - that stretches everywhere that American once had friends in great numbers. Amazing what happens when a president lies about Iraq, Saddam, and implies that all foreigners are dangerous. First he destroys good relationships with virutally every nation in the world. Virtually every nation. Pesident even tried to claim those PDB did not exist. No problem. Blame those dangerous "Dotster's and friends". Who else will be blame - besides me.

I'm sorry you will be getting divorsed. But don't take it out on me. I am not your husband. Personal attacks don't prove your point.

Even your own citation demonstrates what Dotster was complaining about. 'When' is irrelevant. Don't blame me. You quoted the source. The US government did impose restrictions on allied nations meaning that, for a while, our best international friends had to apply for Visas. At one point even Canada was on that list. Apparantly some phone calls between Ottawa and Washington quickly created a Canadian exemption. I don't remember details but solution did invoke some previous Canadian / American border agreements. Dotster's reasons for complaint from Britian did exist becasue Britian could not provide the required passports.

Dude, What are you smoking??? Seriously. I'm sure many people here would like some. What ever gave you the idea I am getting divorced? (By the way, you spelled it wrong.)

In addition, where am I getting personal?? I honestly don't see a personal attack...

No, it didn't.