Why LIHOP is getting more and more credible

busherie

Thinker
B
Joined
Dec 12, 2006
Messages
247
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/050607.html

Former CIA chief George Tenet's book At the center of the storm provides us with fresh new information about the critical summer of 2001.

He gives us more detail about the famous July 10th meeting between Tenet, Black and Rice.

But what's new are the details of the late august visit to Bush at his ranch. Apparently, Tenet tried to warn President Bush about the incoming threat. Bush replied with small talk about flora and fauna...

In the following article by Robert Parry, who broke out many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980's, we see how ambigous the Bush administration response to the very high level of threats was.

These two major elements (july 10th meeting, late august visit at Camp David) are important because their existence and significance were not analyzed by the 9/11 Commission.

What are your reactions to all this?

Will we ever know if there was indeed LIHOP?

Busherie
 
Depends on how you define LIHOP.

If you mean that the goverment ignored warnings that in hindsight are perfectly clear, then just about every disaster can be classified as LIHOP.

If you mean that the government was sure that the attack was going to occur and did nothing, I'd have to see real evidence.
 
Tenet covering his butt to make himself look better (after 5 years) is obviously more believable than the other officials covering their butts to make them look better because . . . uh . . . because he is hawking a book?

Oh, no. Now I remember. Because that fits the narrative we want more. Check.
 
What is beyond me is how you can expect someone to stop an attack when the warning is so general. "Bin Laden determined to strike US with hijacked airliners". Sure, in hindsight that is referring to 9/11.

Back then, you can't really act on that kind of intelligence.
 
I of course believe every word from George "Slam Dunk" Tenet. How could I not? He is such an honest man; so on top of things.
 
Slayhamlet said:
I of course believe every word from George "Slam Dunk" Tenet. How could I not? He is such an honest man; so on top of things.
Click to expand...

When I think of George Tenet I think of that classic phrase, "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, we won't be fooled again."
 
20-20 Hinsight. Fantastic, eh?


Now let's see sone evidence. That's E - V - I - D - E - N - C - E. Not theories. That's C - R - A - P.
 
If Tenet has more compelling "foreknowledge" than was contained in the August 6 memo included in the Daily Presidential Briefing (which frankly, was not even remotely useful and in no way constitutes foreknowledge) my first question would be "Why wasn't it in the briefing?".

IF there's nothing more compelling, we're still stick with:

"Three years ago Osama Bin Laden wanted to attack the USA and probably still does".

Great. Real helpful.

-Gumboot
 
I guess we can add Tenet to the list of people who simply forgot that he's supposed to be covering stuff up, huh?

Not likely.
 
busherie said:
What are your reactions to all this?
Click to expand...

The whole article looks like a solid argument in favour of a form of high-level LIHOI, or perhaps simple NIH (Not Invented Here - the anti-terrorist initiatives were seen as less valuable because they were associated with the Clinton administration). If it was LIHOP, it would make more sense IMO for the Bush administration to waste a lot of time and effort on some misconceived anti-terrorism campaign that was designed to be ineffective, rather than to profess disinterest. Then, after the event, they could say, "The attacks succeeded despite all our best efforts, therefore we now need to introduce even more curbs on civil liberties and increased government powers", thus magnifying the success of the operation from their point of view. Wasting time on things that will never work as a misdirection tactic is something governments are generally very good at.

Will we ever know if there was indeed LIHOP?
Click to expand...

Since it relies on the state of mind of specific individuals being accurately known, almost by definition the answer is no.

Dave
 
What will be interesting is to do a comparison between Tenet's book and Clarke's book and see what aligns between the two.
 
Yes Busherie they recieved lots and lots and lots of warnings from all over the place. They were told time and time and time again an attack was coming.

The system was blinking red, time ran out. And you reckon that they let it all happen on purpose and hope nobody would notice that they had received shed loads of warnings beforehand?
 
stateofgrace said:
Yes Busherie they recieved lots and lots and lots of warnings from all over the place. They were told time and time and time again an attack was coming.

The system was blinking red, time ran out. And you reckon that they let it all happen on purpose and hope nobody would notice that they had received shed loads of warnings beforehand?
Click to expand...

How many times have you been warned by TV, your doctor, your spouse--everybody and anybody--"You are going to die"

Eat right, exercise, lower cholesterol, lower blood pressure, stay away from poisons, walk to work, wear tinfoil hats, consult Sylvia--and lightning strikes you as you go out to pick up the paper.
Why didn't you do something about it beforehand?
 
pgwenthold said:
When I think of George Tenet I think of that classic phrase, "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, we won't be fooled again."
Click to expand...

You forgot the stuttering and stammering. Without it, the full effect is totally lost.
 
busherie said:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/050607.html

Former CIA chief George Tenet's book At the center of the storm provides us with fresh new information about the critical summer of 2001.

He gives us more detail about the famous July 10th meeting between Tenet, Black and Rice.

But what's new are the details of the late august visit to Bush at his ranch. Apparently, Tenet tried to warn President Bush about the incoming threat. Bush replied with small talk about flora and fauna...

In the following article by Robert Parry, who broke out many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980's, we see how ambigous the Bush administration response to the very high level of threats was.

These two major elements (july 10th meeting, late august visit at Camp David) are important because their existence and significance were not analyzed by the 9/11 Commission.

What are your reactions to all this?

Will we ever know if there was indeed LIHOP?

Busherie
Click to expand...
I have to blame Tenet since he knew guys were going to cut throats and take airplanes into the WTC, Pentagon and White House or Congress. It is his fault.

If you know something like this is going to happen you have to tell everyone. Tenet failed. Oops did he really know?

I was in the USAF since 1974. We were always being warned about bad guys wanting to kill us or our families overseas. We were warn all the time. In Italy, in Japan, all over. No one ever got me.

But the same kind of warnings come everyday. Which one will it be. I was a pilot in the USAF. NEVER once did someone tell me someone was going to steal my plane with box cutters. Therefore there were no warnings before 9/11 specific to what happen on 9/11.

You can take all you fiction books and movies, but they were not presented as intel for me to see an attack coming.

If one of the truthers is so good at knowing this was coming I would be upset they did not contact the world and warn us.

Tenet is selling books, he did not tell anyone box-cutter terrorist were coming to fly planes into buildings.

What did you do to help us? If you are going to blame one person about 9/11 and not being prepared we must all take the hit. We all have let the preparation go without using our heads if you can make a case for being negligent.

Maybe we should fire all of congress who have anything to do with intelliegence oversight! We can vote.
 
Last edited:
The Doc said:
What is beyond me is how you can expect someone to stop an attack when the warning is so general. "Bin Laden determined to strike US with hijacked airliners". Sure, in hindsight that is referring to 9/11.

Back then, you can't really act on that kind of intelligence.
Click to expand...

In actually reading the the transcript of the memo, if anything, it says that "People are planning attacks, but we don't know exactly what they are yet, and we'll get back to you when we got more info. Just FYI." Nothing spectacular. I'm not surprised that Bush wanted to continue tending his garden.

Frankly, people can paint that picture anyway they want. If Bush was popular among the American people, books and opeds would probably be talking about this in a different light. This is why I don't listen to pundits and writers trying to make a buck by hitching a ride on the "Bash Bush" campaign.

To tie this more into the topic, that's the same reasoning why the conspiracy nutbars continue selling videos for $10 a pop that rehash the same crap over and over again. Conspiracies are popular, because people like intrigue and suspense, so it's a great way to rake in some money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom