Nixon Group Seen 9-11 Coming

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Apparently the U.S. government seen 9-11 coming for a long, long time.

--------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Foresaw Terror Threats in 1970s

By FRANK BASS and RANDY HERSCHAFT, Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON - Nearly three decades before the Sept. 11 attacks, a high-level government panel developed plans to protect the nation against terrorist acts ranging from radiological "dirty bombs" to airline missile attacks, according to declassified documents obtained by The Associated Press.

"Unless governments take basic precautions, we will continue to stand at the edge of an awful abyss," Robert Kupperman, chief scientist for the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, wrote in a 1977 report that summarized nearly five years of work by the Cabinet Committee to Combat Terrorism.

The group was formed in September 1972 by President Nixon after Palestinian commandos slaughtered 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympic Games (news - web sites). The committee involved people as diverse as Henry Kissinger to a young Rudolph Giuliani, the once-secret documents show.

"It is vital that we take every possible action ourselves and in concert with other nations designed to assure against acts of terrorism," Nixon wrote in asking his secretary of state, William Rogers, to oversee the task force.

"It is equally important that we be prepared to act quickly and effectively in the event that, despite all efforts at prevention, an act of terrorism occurs involving the United States, either at home or abroad," the president said.

The full committee met only once, in October 1972, to organize, but its experts did get together twice a month over nearly five years to identify threats and debate solutions, the memos show.

Eventually, the group's influence waned as competing priorities, a change of presidents ushered in by Watergate, bureaucratic turf battles and a lack of spectacular domestic attacks took their toll.

But before that happened, the panel identified many of the same threats that would confront President Bush (news - web sites) at the dawn of the 21st century.

The experts fretted that terrorists might gather loose nuclear materials for a "dirty bomb" that could devastate an American city by spreading lethal radioactivity.

"This is a real threat, not science fiction," National Security Council staffer Richard T. Kennedy wrote his boss, Kissinger, in November 1972.

Rogers, in a memo to Nixon in mid-1973, praised the Atomic Energy Commission's steps to safeguard nuclear weapons. Rogers, however, also warned the president that "atomic materials could afford mind-boggling possibilities for terrorists."

Committee members identified commercial jets as a particular vulnerability, but raised concerns that airlines would not pay for security improvements such as tighter screening procedures and routine baggage inspections.

"The trouble with the plans is that airlines and airports will have to absorb the costs and so they will scream bloody murder should this be required of them," according to a White House memo from 1972. "Otherwise, it is a sound plan which will curtail the risk of hijacking substantially."

By 1976, government pressure to improve airport security and thwart hijackings had awakened airline industry lobbyists.

The International Air Transport Association said "airport security is the responsibility of the host government. The airline industry did not consider the terrorist threat its most significant problem; it had to measure it against other priorities. If individual companies were forced to provide their own security, they would go broke," according to minutes from one meeting.

Thousands of pages of heavily blacked out records and memos obtained by the AP from government archives and under the Freedom of Information Act show the task force:

_discussed defending commercial aircraft against being shot down by portable missile systems;



_recommended improved vigilance at potential "soft" targets, such as major holiday events, municipal water supplies, nuclear power plants and electric power facilities;

_supported cracking down on foreigners living in and traveling through the United States, with particular attention to Middle Easterners and Arab-Americans;

_developed plans to protect U.S. diplomats and businessmen working abroad against kidnapping and attack.

Though the CIA (news - web sites) routinely updated the committee on potential terrorist threats and plots, task force members learned quickly that intelligence gathering and coordination was a weak spot, just as Bush would discover three decades later.

Long before he was mayor and helped New York City recover from the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center, Giuliani told the committee in May 1976 that he feared legal restrictions were thwarting federal agents from collecting intelligence unless there had been a violation of the law.

Giuliani, who at that time was the associate deputy attorney general in President Ford's Justice Department (news - web sites), suggested relaxing intelligence collection guidelines — something that occurred with the Patriot Act three decades later

Other committee members said that obstacles to intelligence gathering were more bureaucratic than legal.

Lewis Hoffacker, a veteran ambassador who served as chairman of the terrorism working group, told the AP that institutional rivalries, particularly between the FBI (news - web sites) and CIA, were a constant source of frustration even in the 1970s.

"That was our headache, a quarter-century ago," said Hoffacker, now retired. "They all pulled back into their little fiefdoms. The CIA was always off by itself, and the FBI was dealing with the same situation they're dealing with today."

Finding the political will to fight terrorism in the absence of a major attack in the United States also quickly became a problem. Proposals for international penalties against countries harboring terrorists drew little support from the United Nations (news - web sites), the memos show.

"The climate at the 1974 General Assembly was such that no profitable initiative in the terrorism field was feasible," Ford heard from Kissinger, his secretary of state, in early 1975.

Two years later, the working group was absorbed by the National Security Council. In a 1978 report, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee (news - web sites) worried that the Carter administration was not giving enough attention to terrorism.

"The United States will not be able to combat the growing challenge of terrorism unless the executive policy-making apparatus is more effectively and forcefully utilized," the Senate committee warned.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ixon_terrorism

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

More reason to indict Kinda-sleaza "we could never have imagined anyone using aircraft as missles" Rice for perjury.

Nixon Worried About Terrorists Crashing Planes Into Buildings

These documents were JUST released and had been previously classified.

Nixon worried about terrorists hijacking planes and flying them into buildings and berated the airlines for not wanting to pay for better security.

And look at who one of his advisors were: Guliani himself!

"Never imagine terrorists would crash planes into buildings"--right.

Cheney and Rumsfeld were also Nixon cronies, BTW.

http://wid.ap.org/documents/nixonterror.html

[W*GS]

I wonder.

If Kerry had won, and had nominated an African-American woman to be Secretary of State, how would LABF react if conservatives came up with slurs based on her name?

Would we be hearing from him about how intrinsically racist the Right is?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by W*GS

I wonder.

If Kerry had won, and had nominated an African-American woman to be Secretary of State, how would LABF react if conservatives came up with slurs based on her name?

What a flimsy argument - even by W*GS' usual standard.

In typical lockstep with his fellow wingnuts, W*GS plays the race card when Rice's competence and/or ethics are questioned.

BTW, the play on Rice's name is what's called "satire," W*GS. (And he accuses me or being "earnest?")

Notice how you never see W*GS object to "slurs" when a liberal is the target?

W*GS is all about the double standard, and his pretense of occupying some sort of high moral ground is a sham.

Originally Posted by W*GS

Would we be hearing from him about how intrinsically racist the Right is?

No need to 'hear from' me to confirm this well-known fact.

All that is required is a basic familiarity with the history of the U.S. in the late 20th century.

How pathetic and delusional is W*GS' foregone conclusion that the right isn't "intrinsically racist?" (Never mind the fact that Dim Son would not be squatting in the WH today were it not for a calculated appeal to the GOP's racist base in the south during the 2000 primaries.)

Does W*GS ever tire of denying reality in order to cover the right's flank?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And now, a quote to make W*GS foam at the mouth again:

"What was Trent Lott doing up there in front of the world, as master of ceremonies for
Bush's inauguration. This is the one day that America really needs to show its best face
-- not its "blackface"... Bush's best line of the day was when he said "our country must
abandon all the habits of racism, because we cannot carry the message of freedom and
the baggage of bigotry at the same time." And yet he allowed himself to be introduced
by a 5-piece Samsonite set of bigotry. Talk about undercutting one's message."

--Will Bunch

http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/extr...es/001394.html

More "objectionable" truth-telling about right-wing racism, eh?

[RaiderH8r]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

And now, a quote to make W*GS foam at the mouth again:

"What was Trent Lott doing up there in front of the world, as master of ceremonies for
Bush's inauguration. This is the one day that America really needs to show its best face
-- not its "blackface"... Bush's best line of the day was when he said "our country must
abandon all the habits of racism, because we cannot carry the message of freedom and
the baggage of bigotry at the same time." And yet he allowed himself to be introduced
by a 5-piece Samsonite set of bigotry. Talk about undercutting one's message."

--Will Bunch

http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/extr...es/001394.html

More "objectionable" truth-telling about right-wing racism, eh?

Coming from a guy who constantly mocks a black woman from Alabama who worked her way through school, recieved a PhD and is now Secretary of State. I guess the silver spoon of hypocrisy doesn't fall too far from Chappy Kennedy.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by RaiderH8r

Coming from a guy who constantly mocks a black woman from Alabama who worked her way through school, recieved a PhD and is now Secretary of State. I guess the silver spoon of hypocrisy doesn't fall too far from Chappy Kennedy.

You know a reich-winger is truly out of ammo when all he can muster is this sort of lame misrepresentation of the other side's position.

Kinda-sleeza's race, birthplace, and educational experience have never been the subject of debate.

Rice's incompetence, lack of integrity, and lies to the American people have always been the issue.

[Montaq]

The right-wing accusing liberals of being racist based on the fact that they don't like Rice is laughable.

When did the Republican Party enjoy it's largest influx of membership? Did it have something to do with LBJ and civil rights? I believe so.

[RaiderH8r]

Originally Posted by Montaq

The right-wing accusing liberals of being racist based on the fact that they don't like Rice is laughable.

When did the Republican Party enjoy it's largest influx of membership? Did it have something to do with LBJ and civil rights? I believe so.

Republicans weren't doing so bad when Lincoln abolished slavery.

[Mile High Shack]

ugh

again with the race stuff

it's not like either side has had steller histories in relation to it

one party isn't better than the other in regards to that.

[Montaq]

Originally Posted by RaiderH8r

Republicans weren't doing so bad when Lincoln abolished slavery.

At least you only had to go back 140 years to find something.

[RaiderH8r]

Originally Posted by Montaq

At least you only had to go back 140 years to find something.

An emancipation here, an oppression there, it's a good thing we're not just blowin smoke and only paying lip service to their concerns. I can't speak for everybody else in my party, but I woke up this morning just itching to oppress someone. Any suggestions?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Yada, yada, yada. Anyone have any thoughts about our government knowing, as early as the early 70s, that 9-11 was probably going to happen? I find that fact pretty disturbing.

[RaiderH8r]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Yada, yada, yada. Anyone have any thoughts about our government knowing, as early as the early 70s, that 9-11 was probably going to happen? I find that fact pretty disturbing.

There was a gentlemen, last name Byck, who tape recorded his intentions to kill President Nixon by hijacking a plane and crashing it into the White House. So no, doesn't surprise me. But to say that they knew what events were going to transpire on that day in September is a bit of a leap. Yeah, I can speculate that some jackoff with a vest full of grenades is going to run into the subway in New York City, whatchya gonna do? They speculated on possible scenarios.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by RaiderH8r

There was a gentlemen, last name Byck, who tape recorded his intentions to kill President Nixon by hijacking a plane and crashing it into the White House. So no, doesn't surprise me. But to say that they knew what events were going to transpire on that day in September is a bit of a leap. Yeah, I can speculate that some jackoff with a vest full of grenades is going to run into the subway in New York City, whatchya gonna do? They speculated on possible scenarios.

They laid out plans to defend ourselves against this attack. Doesn't sound like a reach to me. It sounds like big business (namely the airlines) said no to any kind of added security and our governmnent bowed down to them.

"Unless governments take basic precautions, we will continue to stand at the edge of an awful abyss," Robert Kupperman, chief scientist for the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, wrote in a 1977 report that summarized nearly five years of work by the Cabinet Committee to Combat Terrorism.

The group was formed in September 1972 by President Nixon after Palestinian commandos slaughtered 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympic Games (news - web sites). The committee involved people as diverse as Henry Kissinger to a young Rudolph Giuliani, the once-secret documents show.

"It is vital that we take every possible action ourselves and in concert with other nations designed to assure against acts of terrorism," Nixon wrote in asking his secretary of state, William Rogers, to oversee the task force.


"This is a real threat, not science fiction," National Security Council staffer Richard T. Kennedy wrote his boss, Kissinger, in November 1972.

Rogers, in a memo to Nixon in mid-1973, praised the Atomic Energy Commission's steps to safeguard nuclear weapons. Rogers, however, also warned the president that "atomic materials could afford mind-boggling possibilities for terrorists."

Committee members identified commercial jets as a particular vulnerability, but raised concerns that airlines would not pay for security improvements such as tighter screening procedures and routine baggage inspections.

"The trouble with the plans is that airlines and airports will have to absorb the costs and so they will scream bloody murder should this be required of them," according to a White House memo from 1972. "Otherwise, it is a sound plan which will curtail the risk of hijacking substantially."

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

What a flimsy argument - even by W*GS' usual standard.

Not at all. You, in particular, LABF, play the race card when it suits you. Remember when I noted that Bush's nomination of Ortega as AG would gain him favor with some Hispanics? You sure were quick to trot out the "racism" slur when you thought it made some sort of argument.

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

BTW, the play on Rice's name is what's called "satire," W*GS. (And he accuses me or being "earnest?")

Twain was satirical. Voltaire was satirical. Wilde was satirical. You are not satirical - just plain vulgar, crude, and juvenile.

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

No need to 'hear from' me to confirm this well-known fact.

How do you explain the Hon. Sen Byrd, then?

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

All that is required is a basic familiarity with the history of the U.S. in the late 20th century.

...which is all the further back your knowledge goes, kiddo. The Left plays the race card all the time - in attempt to shut down any dissension. I wouldn't be surprised if Bill Cosby was targetted because his views on blacks in this country don't square with those of the self-appointed black "leaders" and their liberal sycophants.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Montaq

At least you only had to go back 140 years to find something.

rofl

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Not at all. You, in particular, LABF, play the race card when it suits you. Remember when I noted that Bush's nomination of Ortega as AG would gain him favor with some Hispanics? You sure were quick to trot out the "racism" slur when you thought it made some sort of argument.

Thanks for reminding us of yet another occasion when I outed you as a racist.

Apparently, you learned nothing from the experience as you still fail to see the inherent racism in your comment about Ortega's nomination winning favor for Dim Son from Hispanics.

Originally Posted by W*GS

Twain was satirical. Voltaire was satirical. Wilde was satirical. You are not satirical - just plain vulgar, crude, and juvenile.

Translation: "Since I can't refute LABF's point, I'll have to settle for the usual name-calling followed by a declaration of victory. Works for my right-wing buddies."

Originally Posted by W*GS

How do you explain the Hon. Sen Byrd, then?

As another W*GS deflection.

Originally Posted by W*GS

...which is all the further back your knowledge goes, kiddo.

W*GS with the ever-predictable projection.

Your "knowledge" never seems to go back further than Rush's latest broadcast, does it, Junior?

Originally Posted by W*GS

The Left plays the race card all the time - in attempt to shut down any dissension.

Examples? I didn't think so. But how can we expect a racist like W*GS to understand the difference?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Montaq

When did the Republican Party enjoy it's largest influx of membership? Did it have something to do with LBJ and civil rights? I believe so.

Bingo.

When confronted with this uncomfortable fact, wingers like W*GS, et al, invariably deflect by crying "Senator Byrd!"

People like W*GS are like a children with burgeoning character disorders who, when caught doing something naughty, cry "well Johnny did the same thing once, so I'm not responsible!"

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Thanks for reminding us of yet another occasion when I outed you as a racist.

Yup - using the "racist" bat in a lame attempt to deflect attention away from the pathetic nature of your arguments.

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Apparently, you learned nothing from the experience as you still fail to see the inherent racism in your comment about Ortega's nomination winning favor for Dim Son from Hispanics.

I didn't say "Hispanics", I said "some Hispanics", and, I don't see as how it's inherently racist to note the fact. Can you explain?

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Translation: "Since I can't refute LABF's point, I'll have to settle for the usual name-calling followed by a declaration of victory. Works for my right-wing buddies."

Projection on your part. You can't help but name-call ("Kinda-sleeza") and the bogus "declaration of victory".

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Examples? I didn't think so. But how can we expect a racist like W*GS to understand the difference?

See the above comment from you calling me a racist based on no evidence of any kind.

You're just a sore loser.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Yup - using the "racist" bat in a lame attempt to deflect attention away from the pathetic nature of your arguments.

I didn't say "Hispanics", I said "some Hispanics", and, I don't see as how it's inherently racist to note the fact. Can you explain?

You implied that the mere fact that Smirk nominated a Hispanic person automatically meant such a nomination would win favor with other persons of Hispanic descent.

In other words, you are implying that Hispanics are too dumb or too shallow to judge Gonzales first and foremost on his merits.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Projection on your part. You can't help but name-call ("Kinda-sleeza") and the bogus "declaration of victory".

Another swing and a miss by W*GS.

It would only be "projection" if I were addressing you (since it is you and not Kinda-sleaza with whom I am speaking/arguing.)

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

You implied that the mere fact that Smirk nominated a Hispanic person automatically meant such a nomination would win favor with other persons of Hispanic descent.

How is pointing out the obvious in any way "racist"?

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

In other words, you are implying that Hispanics are too dumb or too shallow to judge Gonzales first and foremost on his merits.

Nope.

Gonzales' nomination did find favor with some Hispanics - not just because he was Hispanic, but also because of his conservatism.

How is that rather obvious fact also "racist"?

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

BTW, the play on Rice's name is what's called "satire," W*GS. (And he accuses me or being "earnest?")

Originally Posted by W*GS

Twain was satirical. Voltaire was satirical. Wilde was satirical. You are not satirical - just plain vulgar, crude, and juvenile.

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Translation: "Since I can't refute LABF's point, I'll have to settle for the usual name-calling followed by a declaration of victory. Works for my right-wing buddies."

Originally Posted by W*GS

Projection on your part. You can't help but name-call ("Kinda-sleeza") and the bogus "declaration of victory".

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

It would only be "projection" if I were addressing you (since it is you and not Kinda-sleaza with whom I am speaking/arguing.)

You've gone so far down the road you're not even making sense.

Back up a little and try again.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by W*GS

How is pointing out the obvious in any way "racist"?

Here's how:

Your foregone conclusion that a person's motives are "obvious" or transparent simply because of his/her race.

Originally Posted by W*GS

You've gone so far down the road you're not even making sense.

Specifics?

"Not making sense" = "W*GS' comprehension trouble."