Re[2]: [at-l] VERY OT was RE: No Hunting?

[bullard@northnet.org (Jim Bullard)]

At 03:10 AM 11/27/2002 +0000, Jim and/or Ginny Owen wrote:

>Bob C. wrote:
>>>...if Clinton and Daschle hadn't gutted the defense budget maybe they'd
>>>still be standing," argues Bryan.
>>
>>Sorry folks. But I just can't resist responding to a totally off the wall
>>comment. the defence budget was cut as the Russian threat gradually
>>diminished. But it remained higher than most of the rest of the world
>>combined. There is not an iota of evidence that anything was cut that in
>>any way could have stopped 7-11.
>
>You should have resisted it. I'm an ex-Marine as is one of my sons.  The
>other son was Airborne.  My brother is a retired Special Forces Colonel.  =
We
>all have friends, relatives and co-workers who are either ex-military or
>still in the military.  And other friends who are CIA, NSA and a couple
>other alphabet soup agencies.  And we'll all tell you you're wrong.  Do yo=
u
>really want details?  I can provide them.

So where are the details Jim?  Exactly what was cut from the military
budget that would have prevented 9/11?  Get specific.  The terrorists flew
our own planes into the WTC because they don't have a military force that
could attack us and win.

>Do you know, for example, why the
>10th Mountain Division was sent into Afghanistan only after the SpecOps
>troops had done the bulk of the job? Do you have any idea how few units ar=
e
>combat-ready even today?

As far as Afghanistan goes, sending in special operations troops first is
SOP.  Has been for a long time.  They sent out advance parties in the Civil
War.  The 10th was/is battle ready (they're based just 1=BD hours South of
me) and they did the job they were trained to do and did it well, just as
they did what they were called on to do in Kosovo and elsewhere. I'm sure
that some of the Spec Ops guys would smirk at the role the 10th played but
there have always been such unit rivalries and the entire military
establishment can't be Green Berets.  It wouldn't work.

>Also keep in mind who it was that gutted the overseas CIA Humint capabilit=
y.
>  And that specifically was the best chance we had to stop 911. And then
>there was a Democratic President who allowed bin Laden & Co to kill
>Americans without reprisal, without consequences, thus sending the clear
>message that America was too soft to respond even to direct threats.  Henc=
e
>911.  Don't get me started.
>
>If you believe what you said, then you're either blind or you've become, a=
s
>I expressed it the other day, politically indoctrinated to the exclusion o=
f
>truth.
>
>>Clinton staffers say they tried to warn the Bush regime about the
>>possibility of such an attack and were ignored.
>
>Really??  So where were those people with their warnings during the bombon=
g
>of the Embassies and the Cole?

What *exactly* do you think the prior administration could have done to
stop that?  Details Jim.  Not rumor from somebody you know who has a friend
in Washington, who knows that the Clinton administration knew such-and-such
in advance, etc.  Give us the specifics, back it up with cold hard facts
*that others here can verify* or label it for what it is, your
opinion.  The information they had was non-specific and made sense after
the fact but exactly how could they have deduced the plan from the
information they had?  20-20 hindsight is a wonderful thing and everything
that points to the event is easily identifiable in retrospect but then you
are ignoring the rest of the sea of information it was in prior to the
event when no one knew which parts were true and which weren't.  9/11
angered us all, but after the fact finger pointing based in incomplete data
resolves nothing.

>Walk softly through that minefield,
>Jim

Minefields are only are problem when you don't know where the mines (the
facts) are.  Where are your facts?

Now you got me going.  I'm way OT and I wasn't going to do that.  I need a
hike.
sAunTerer