Bush's Speech and Press Conference

[Timber Loftis]

The point is to identify mistakes made so they are not repeated. Correction of errors.

Exactly!!! Which is why assigning blame is useless. The mistakes were made by the government at large, and trying to pin them on one person is like trying to identify who is responsible for an earthquake. It's just so damned silly. Let's just try to move forward appropriately, mkay?

But, on the issue of assigning blame, I personally like Bush41 and Clinton better, but I recognize that if we must assign fault, it goes first to them.

And what about the lady on the 9/11 commission who's responsible for bifrocating the FBI and CIA info? Seemed reasonable at the time (one agency is about intelligence, the other is about convicting criminals -- a much higher proof standard), and I don't want to hold her accountable. However, she should recuse herself.

While many of us bitch quite often that in civil lawsuits people are held responsible for silly things, we seem willing to dole out the exact same sort of blame regarding 9/11. It's just silly.

[Skunk]

Blame is an issue because those who made the errors of judgement are *still* in office and it has to be established as to whether they should still be considered to be competent enough to continue in their current posts.

In much the same way as Clinton's impeachment questioned whether he was fit to continue in office and whether the scandals surrounding him made him a liability to the nation.

[Timber Loftis]

Yeah, I wasn't for Clinton's impeachment either. It was the dumbest exercise of the impeachment process I could have imagined. The "mistakes" are not "negligence," because 9/11 was not foreseeable. The mistakes were made by the government at large, and by we the people at large for not recognizing the gathering thunderstorm, despite hints and mild warnings. To lay that at the feet of one man, or a group of men, is just silly. It's pretending humans can predicts and stop every bad thing. It's burying our heads in the sand. It's just stupid.

But, your bias is your bias, and you are a consistent voter -- I'll give you that.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: The point is to identify mistakes made so they are not repeated. Correction of errors.

Exactly!!! Which is why assigning blame is useless. The mistakes were made by the government at large, and trying to pin them on one person is like trying to identify who is responsible for an earthquake. It's just so damned silly. Let's just try to move forward appropriately, mkay?

But, on the issue of assigning blame, I personally like Bush41 and Clinton better, but I recognize that if we must assign fault, it goes first to them.

And what about the lady on the 9/11 commission who's responsible for bifrocating the FBI and CIA info? Seemed reasonable at the time (one agency is about intelligence, the other is about convicting criminals -- a much higher proof standard), and I don't want to hold her accountable. However, she should recuse herself.

While many of us bitch quite often that in civil lawsuits people are held responsible for silly things, we seem willing to dole out the exact same sort of blame regarding 9/11. It's just silly. [/QUOTE]Agreed T.L. the lady should step down, I don't agree with the action of seperating the FBI & CIA to the extent that was undertaken, but I understand the reasons. Was that a mistake yes, should she be blamed and held up as the reason for 9/11 NO way in "HALE" as far as I can tell she has no nail holes in her hands and feet, no spear has pierced her side, nor a crown of thorns placed on her head, She did what she thunked was best. Her thunking was wrong, in hindsight of 9/11, but since she couldn't and can't see the future to blame her is assinine. Just as it is assinine to blame anybody that couldn't see the future, unless of course the blamers are claiming that power, and they'll have to show me a lot more evidence then they have, for me to take thier word at their fortune telling abilities. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Chewbacca]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...18-norad_x.htm
*******************

NORAD had drills of jets as weapons

By Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.
One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center. In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say.

NORAD, in a written statement, confirmed that such hijacking exercises occurred. It said the scenarios outlined were regional drills, not regularly scheduled continent-wide exercises.

"Numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft," the statement said. "These exercises tested track detection and identification; scramble and interception; hijack procedures; internal and external agency coordination and operational security and communications security procedures."

A White House spokesman said Sunday that the Bush administration was not aware of the NORAD exercises. But the exercises using real aircraft show that at least one part of the government thought the possibility of such attacks, though unlikely, merited scrutiny.

On April 8, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks heard testimony from national security adviser Condoleezza Rice that the White House didn't anticipate hijacked planes being used as weapons.

On April 12, a watchdog group, the Project on Government Oversight, released a copy of an e-mail written by a former NORAD official referring to the proposed exercise targeting the Pentagon. The e-mail said the simulation was not held because the Pentagon considered it "too unrealistic."

President Bush said at a news conference Tuesday, "Nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale."

The exercises differed from the Sept. 11 attacks in one important respect: The planes in the simulation were coming from a foreign country.

Until Sept. 11, NORAD was expected to defend the United States and Canada from aircraft based elsewhere. After the attacks, that responsibility broadened to include flights that originated in the two countries.

But there were exceptions in the early drills, including one operation, planned in July 2001 and conducted later, that involved planes from airports in Utah and Washington state that were "hijacked." Those planes were escorted by U.S. and Canadian aircraft to airfields in British Columbia and Alaska.

NORAD officials have acknowledged that "scriptwriters" for the drills included the idea of hijacked aircraft being used as weapons.

"Threats of killing hostages or crashing were left to the scriptwriters to invoke creativity and broaden the required response," Maj. Gen. Craig McKinley, a NORAD official, told the 9/11 commission. No exercise matched the specific events of Sept. 11, NORAD said.

"We have planned and executed numerous scenarios over the years to include aircraft originating from foreign airports penetrating our sovereign airspace," Gen. Ralph Eberhart, NORAD commander, told USA TODAY. "Regrettably, the tragic events of 9/11 were never anticipated or exercised."

NORAD, a U.S.-Canadian command, was created in 1958 to guard against Soviet bombers.

Until Sept. 11, 2001, NORAD conducted four major exercises a year. Most included a hijack scenario, but not all of those involved planes as weapons. Since the attacks, NORAD has conducted more than 100 exercises, all with mock hijackings.

NORAD fighters based in Florida have intercepted two hijacked smaller aircraft since the Sept. 11 attacks. Both originated in Cuba and were escorted to Key West in spring 2003, NORAD said.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Skunk: Blame is an issue because those who made the errors of judgement are *still* in office and it has to be established as to whether they should still be considered to be competent enough to continue in their current posts. In much the same way as Clinton's impeachment questioned whether he was fit to continue in office and whether the scandals surrounding him made him a liability to the nation.

It may be a simple case of semantics but I draw a distinction between placing blame and assigning accountability/holding somebody(s) accountable. I see blame as an emotional reaction, where as holding someone responsible is not based in emotionalism, but based in the facts of the matter. Blame is also a one-way street, where as taking accountability can be either positive or negative dpending on the circumstances. I agree that people in office and those they appointed should be held to account for their actions or inactions as the case maybe.

The current administration is the only one in a position to suffer or gain from thier actions and policies, making the previous ones largely irrelevant to any discussion that is beyond the scope of simply learning from errors. We (the voters) can hold them to account directly and take corrective action for mistakes made/percieved or reward them for their actions as we choose by simply voting this November.

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Yeah, I wasn't for Clinton's impeachment either. It was the dumbest exercise of the impeachment process I could have imagined. The "mistakes" are not "negligence," because 9/11 was not foreseeable. The mistakes were made by the government at large, and by we the people at large for not recognizing the gathering thunderstorm, despite hints and mild warnings. To lay that at the feet of one man, or a group of men, is just silly. It's pretending humans can predicts and stop every bad thing. It's burying our heads in the sand. It's just stupid.

It was a tough call. I think that Clinton was as good a president that the country could hope for - but there were wider issues at stake.

1. The Whitehouse is government property and there is a clear distinction between the official living and working areas. My understanding was that some of the sexual acts occured during office hours within working areas - something that would lead to an immediate dismissal of any other government employee.
2. When a boss has a relationship with a subordinate, one of them should be transferred so that the issue of 'favours' never arises - this was not done.
3. The president was clearly terrified of the relationship becoming public and was prepared to lie on oath to keep it secret - one wonders how much a malignant power or individual could have gained from the president had he/she been in possession of evidence of the relationship and was willing to engage in blackmail.
4. The President lied on oath - making his honesty an issue
5. The Paula Jones? case was ongoing and the details of that affair were of similar but even more serious nature.
6. The affair(s) were damaging the reputation of the office of President and were thus harmful to the reputation of the US as a whole.

Generally speaking, I would contend that an 'affair' is something between the those engaged in the act and their families. But public office demands a different level of behaviour - and those signing up to it are fully aware of this.

I didn't fully support the impeachment because I believe that, on balance, the nation's best interests were not served by the process. The president was nearing the end of his final term and the proceedings brought the nation more disrepute than it would have done without them. The damage was already done - why add to it?

Had Bill Clinton just started his term of office or been eligible for another term, then I would have supported the impeachment because the nation needed to know whether he was still fit to continue.

Originally posted by Chewbacca: It may be a simple case of semantics but I draw a distinction between placing blame and assigning accountability/holding somebody(s) accountable. I see blame as an emotional reaction, where as holding someone responsible is not based in emotionalism, but based in the facts of the matter.

I see your take on this - and sometimes I have trouble recognising that others do place such emotional emphasis on words. I take blame to mean (without emotion):
to hold responsible with censure
since 'to be accountable' does not neccessarily imply wrongdoing. As such, I think that we are in broad agreement.