Slashdot Mirror


Saving Lives with Design

valdean writes "Last year, the White House declassified an August 2001 intelligence brief entitled: 'Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.' Among other things, the brief mentions that Bin Ladin 'wanted to hijack a US aircraft.' So why was it ignored? Graphic designer Greg Storey thinks part of the reason is poor design. He set out to modify the format of the original document into a more legible one."

430 comments

  1. The spoon explanation. by qewl · · Score: 4, Funny

    In related news, the declassified document now shows Laden originally planned to use spoons isntead of box cutters to hijack the planes...

    /who came up with that anyway? I've never picked up a spoon and thought, "wow that's a pretty input device.."?

    --

    (\_/)
    (O.o) This is Bunny. (> <)
    1. Re:The spoon explanation. by mboverload · · Score: 1, Informative

      Bush already has said he doesn't read newspapers and has aids read him stuff. He doesn't even look at it.

    2. Re:The spoon explanation. by Soko · · Score: 1, Funny

      I've never picked up a spoon and thought, "wow that's a pretty input device.."?

      But... there is no spoon. ;-)

      Soko

      --
      "Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
    3. Re:The spoon explanation. by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Funny

      Bush has aids?

    4. Re:The spoon explanation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      originally planned to use spoons isntead of box cutters to hijack the planes...
      /who came up with that anyway?

      You obviously haven't seen Mystery Men and the opening minutes to Spy Kids 2.

    5. Re:The spoon explanation. by LoonieMiami · · Score: 1

      Thank God we won't have Bush forever. So, I would take into consideration TFA's suggestions.

    6. Re:The spoon explanation. by Arathrael · · Score: 4, Funny

      Must be inspiration taken from that other renowed villain, the Sheriff of Nottingham. I can see the scene:

      Bin Laden: We will cut their hearts out, with spoons!
      Lackey: Why spoons? Why not box cutters?
      Bin Laden: Because they're dull you twit, it'll hurt more!

    7. Re:The spoon explanation. by Atrax · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bush has aids?

      possibly. He certainly doesn't believe in safe sex

      --
      Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
    8. Re:The spoon explanation. by mobby_6kl · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Didn't you get the memo? Everyone has AIDS!

      Everyone has AIDS!
      AIDS AIDS AIDS!
      AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS!
      Everyone has AIDS!

      My father (AIDS!)
      My sister (AIDS!)
      My uncle and my cousin and her best friend (AIDS AIDS AIDS!)
      The gays and the straights
      And the white and the spades

      Everyone has AIDS!
      My grandma and my dog 'ol blue (AIDS AIDS AIDS)
      The pope has got it and so do you (AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS)
      C'mon everybody we got quilting to do (AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS)
      We gotta break down these baricades, everyone has
      AIDS!

      (from Team America World Police)

    9. Re:The spoon explanation. by Tassach · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Thank God we won't have Bush forever
      Three cheers for the Twenty-Second Amendment.

      Of course, that just means that instead of King George we'll have his idiot brother occupying the White House in 2008, with the same old crooks pulling the strings behind the scenes.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    10. Re:The spoon explanation. by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      i guess you never have been to prison. your tounge is enouhg to sharped and harded a plastic spoon to the point of razer sharp. It will also be hard enough stich somehign several times. Ask any guard and they will tell you that it is a no-no to let a prisoner suck on a plastic spoon like a kid would do.

      It seems inocent enough but can cause alot of problems. Sharpened (metal) spoons are somethign that would definatly bypassed the security at the airport. It is also somethign that could have been planted on the plane without looking out of place.

      As for bold type and stuff the article mentions, It probably wouldn't be too goo of an idea. Once the president starts just looking for bold type instead of scanning the entire document, he is likley to miss things that some lower level official didn't deem important. Maybe we need to hire another cabinate member whos job is to read the reports entirely after the president and attempt to place the inteligence data into a more percice perspective and then verbaly express any concerns. This would double check the existing inteligence agencies opinion and ensure that at minimum, somethign is known byt the president.

    11. Re:The spoon explanation. by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of the anthrax letters. All these news stories "The President wants to assure everyone that he DOES NOT have anthrax"

      So at work we used to joke about it where I'd say "Bush does not have anthrax" and the other guy would turn and give me a suprised look and say "Bush has anthrax?"

    12. Re:The spoon explanation. by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

      Either Jeb Bush wins for the anti-labor, pro-corporation, pro-globalist, pro-war Republican Party, or Hillary Clinton wins for the anti-labor, pro-corporation, pro-globalist, pro-war Democratic Party.

      Suddenly, we have woken up in Soviet Russia, where no matter who you vote for, you end up with the Communist Party candidate in office.

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    13. Re:The spoon explanation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sir, are a fucking idiot.

      Jeb already announced he isn't running in 2008, full stop.

      But then you can't refer to 'King George' and his 'idiot brother', so you conveniently ignore that fact.

      Plus, it lets you pretend like you have a clue as to what will happen in the future.

      My money is on McCain running in 2008.

    14. Re:The spoon explanation. by metamatic · · Score: 1
      Once the president starts just looking for bold type instead of scanning the entire document, he is likley to miss things that some lower level official didn't deem important.

      The current president doesn't read or even scan documents; he has other people read them for him and then "brief" him verbally.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    15. Re:The spoon explanation. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Is that different form the other prsidents?

      I was under the asumption/impression that this document was a daily briefing that sumorized the events form other agnecies. It was my understanding that the depertment heads threw this stuff together for him to read as a cliff notes to whats going on. I didn't think someone already read it for him.

  2. hindsight by hugzz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hindsight is always 20/20

    1. Re:hindsight by jaxdahl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      so let's use this hindsight to improve our foresight

    2. Re:hindsight by Trillan · · Score: 1

      Are you saying bad design can only be recognized in hindsight? Or that having a bad design kill once is an excuse not to change it going forward? Either way, I think you need to go through the Klingon Rite of Design School Passage again. :)

      Bad document template design is easy to show. Give a bunch of document mock-ups to average people and immiedately ask what information the documents convey. See how long it takes them to extract the information and how accurate it is

    3. Re:hindsight by hugzz · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Are you saying bad design can only be recognized in hindsight? Or that having a bad design kill once is an excuse not to change it going forward?

      i'm saying that it may be oh-so-clear to us now how important this document was, so we may think that it's the fault of the design that it was overlooked; but at the time, regardless of they design, they felt it was overlookable.

      at the time there was no design problem. it was simply not an important document. we only think to blame the design now because, using hindsight, we know the document was important.

    4. Re:hindsight by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1
      Hmmm. As they say:

      Analyse with anal eyes, and all you'll get is hindsight...

      But am I the first to realise that the revised article is in Latin? Well, I thought it was funny, anyway...

    5. Re:hindsight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unfortunately, the whole "ex poste" versus "ex ante" thing turns out to be more than a little complicated.

      Even the "design issue" of the original post presuposes that in and amongst a digital info glut, we have ex ante knowledge about which information to highlight with pretty red boxes.

      Shit happens. A lot. Continuously. There is no way to centrally control it. In real life, there is no root.

      The sooner we dispense with the fiction that any entity (esp. government) can "monitor" and "act on" relevant information, the sooner we might move to a realization that no single entity can dictate behaviour on planet earth.

      The self-defeating meme of US foreign policy is that they just need enough analysts to absorb the information and produce a plan of action.

    6. Re:hindsight by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      Oops: meant to say pseudo-Latin... :-|

    7. Re:hindsight by hugzz · · Score: 4, Informative
      Oops: meant to say pseudo-Latin...

      it's lorem ipsum. basicly filler text that looks like english but wont distract the viewer from the real subject matter (the design)

    8. Re:hindsight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so let's use this hindsight to improve our foresight

      My motto is, "We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

      So, my personal foresight tells me to prepare for really bad times ahead, resulting from a lack of foresight by society.

      Peak Oil, suitcase nukes, national debt currency crisis, polluted air & water, pandemics, killer MS-worms, grey goo, human DNA patents, bans on encryption, elimination of free speech...

      The thing about foresight is that it brings discomfort to its posessor!

    9. Re:hindsight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you get a memo well in advance and it says Bin Laden's primary focus is to attack somewhere in the territorial United States, and he'd really like to attack the World Trade Center, and he'd like to execute the attack using US aircraft, I think you've pretty much lost any credibility calling it hindsite. That memo specifically mentions Where, what, how and why. The memo wasn't precicse (it didn't have a high confidence interval) but it was extremely accurate. And because Bush "isn't a reader" NOTHING was done. His job is to take responsability, to digest a lot of information, and make the hard calls. He failed. Could other people have done better? Yes. But the system worked, it got the information to him, and he did use it.

    10. Re:hindsight by k-zed · · Score: 2, Funny

      I thought he used Lorem Ipsum because the "target audience" (W.) wouldn't read the big wordy part anyway...

      --
      we discovered a new way to think.
    11. Re:hindsight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've bought kits from those "restore your foresight" companies and it never worked for me. I wish I never had my foresight removed! I lack the sensitivity I might be able to have if I had my foresight intact. I feel mutilated!

    12. Re:hindsight by 1u3hr · · Score: 3, Informative
      Hindsight is always 20/20

      So that's why this is news over a year later. The TFA is dated "11 April 04". Slashdot: all the old news, dupes and hoaxes fit to print.

      Anyway, it doesn't matter how the information was presented. Bush DOESN'T READ these reports. He has his staff read them to him and summarise; even the one page format, which seemed like a dumbing down when Reagan did it, is too much detail for him.

    13. Re:hindsight by Dogtanian · · Score: 4, Funny

      I thought he used Lorem Ipsum because the "target audience" (W.) wouldn't read the big wordy part anyway...

      GWB isn't the only person who doesn't read the big wordy part. This is a common problem in all people.

      Even on websites targeted towards the intelligent, people post replies to news items without bothering to read the article. Additionally, users won't read replies past the second paragraph; anything after that may as well be lorem ipsum.

      Furthermore, fermentum wisi. Aenean nisl libero, rhoncus ut, aliquam nec, posuere nec, nunc. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Donec vel nibh. Integer enim. Donec posuere imperdiet est. Nam et odio id eros congue imperdiet. Sed vel mauris. Vivamus commodo ipsum nec wisi.

      Fusce consequat, sapien non porta tincidunt, wisi lectus malesuada leo, vitae tincidunt risus libero ac metus. Sed lorem erat, dictum eget, commodo id, auctor volutpat, nibh. Ut sapien neque, tincidunt ut, convallis id, ultricies id, nibh.

      Duis varius. Mauris libero orci, sodales sed, tempor ac, bibendum vitae, urna. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    14. Re:hindsight by fermion · · Score: 1
      Too true.

      The reason it worked is because no one imagined it could or would be done. There were major confluence of factors that made the attack succesful, one of which was it's originality. I am not talking about the theorectical existance, but the the practical implementation.

      It is like taking down a plan with a protable cassete player full of explosives. Done once. Likewise, now that we have a practical example of an airplane as a instrument of death, it is not going to be so easy to subdue passengers who know death is imminent in either case.

      To be less simplistic. It seems the SOP for hijacking is to get the plane down with minimal risks to passengers. To be sure, there are things that the pilots can do to disable hijackers. These moves may have been used in the past to save planes. However, these actions also pose a significant risk to passengers. Injuring or killing a passengers might be justifiable when death is imminent, but not otherwise. Until a hijacker actually killed plane loads of passengers, the risk probably did not seem justified.

      There were other factors as well. For example, the hijackers were not the typical young kids looking for a socially acceptable way to end thier lives. There were no significant defections in the ranks.

      To be sure some of it was a faulty intellignece agency. This is the same intellegence that hugely overestimated the ability of USSR and encouraged a hugely wasteful buildup of WMD in the US. It seems that 20 years would show some progress, but it appears that along with the extremely useful jobs of US intellegence agencies, they are also sometimes reqToo true.

      The reason it worked is because no one imagined it could or would be done. There were major confluence of factors that made the attack successful, one of which was it's originality. I am not talking about the theoretical existence, but the the practical implementation.

      It is like taking down a plan with a portable cassette player full of explosives. Done once. Likewise, now that we have a practical example of an airplane as a instrument of death, it is not going to be so easy to subdue passengers who know death is imminent in either case.

      To be less simplistic. It seems the SOP for hijacking is to get the plane down with minimal risks to passengers. There are things that the pilots can do to disable hijackers. These moves may have been used in the past to save planes. However, these actions also pose a significant risk to passengers. Injuring or killing a passengers might be justifiable when death is imminent, but not otherwise. Until a hijacker actually killed plane loads of passengers, the risk probably did not seem justified.

      There were other factors as well. For example, the hijackers were not the typical young kids looking for a socially acceptable way to end their lives. There were no significant defections in the ranks.

      To be sure some of it was a faulty intelligence agency. This is the same intelligence that hugely overestimated the ability of USSR and encouraged a hugely wasteful buildup of WMD in the US. It seems that 20 years would show some progress, but it appears that along with the extremely useful jobs of US intelligence agencies, they are also sometimes required to makeup data that supports the current administrations desires.uired to makeup data that supports the current adminstrations desires.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    15. Re:hindsight by |<amikaze · · Score: 1

      Well done :D

    16. Re:hindsight by node+3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hindsight is always 20/20

      An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

      (grossly understated, actually--reading a goddamned memo about a known terrorist planning to attack the US is worth ~3,000 lives, two of the world's tallest buildings, part of the Pentagon, four planes, a "smaller" 40+ story building, the Patriot Act, $300bn+, >1.5k troops, 2 wars (so far), well over 100k innocent civilian deaths, our economy, major loss of respect in the eyes of the world, a state of fear, a society on the fast track back to the 1800's and before, and my future.)

      And the best you got is "hindsight is always 20/20"? FUCK YOU!

    17. Re:hindsight by hugzz · · Score: 1
      look i hate bush as much as you (more. he's fucking up my country too and i dont even live in the united states).

      however, if you'd learn to read, i also said that the hindsight comment was in reference to the design, not in reference to them ignoring the memo.

    18. Re:hindsight by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 1

      >>Even on websites targeted towards the intelligent, people post replies to news items without bothering to read the article.

      Yes.

      But that never happens around here right? ;)

      wbs.

      --
      Huh?
    19. Re:hindsight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your parent's post was referring to websites aimed at "the intelligent".

    20. Re:hindsight by node+3 · · Score: 1
      however, if you'd learn to read, i also said that the hindsight comment was in reference to the design, not in reference to them ignoring the memo.

      Your post, in its entirety:
      Hindsight is always 20/20
      I guess, in hindsight, you should have been more clear. Your post was +5 Insightful, and unclear enough to give the wrong impression--even if you meant it otherwise, it needed to be replied to. It's sort of like you've spilt some milk and are saying, "I didn't mean to spill it, so why are you trying to clean it up? Don't you know any better?"

      If you're referring to this, it doesn't really clear it up.

      In other words, it's not my reading that was deficient here. That said, sorry for the confusion.
    21. Re:hindsight by dnoyeb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the question is do we put real people in real positions with real qualifications. Or do we continue to hire our friends and relatives and cronies to important positions.

      I think this comes from the belief that shit happens and you can't stop it so you might as well give the job to a friend who can't stop it either. I disagree. The politicisation of important US security institutions is going to result in very bad security.

    22. Re:hindsight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I totally agree with your statement here...:"Furthermore, fermentum wisi. Aenean nisl libero, rhoncus ut, aliquam nec, posuere nec, nunc. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Donec vel nibh. Integer enim. Donec posuere imperdiet est. Nam et odio id eros congue imperdiet. Sed vel mauris. Vivamus commodo ipsum nec wisi."

      I really believe you have to think of it much more logically than the generalization you pose with this argument: " Fusce consequat, sapien non porta tincidunt, wisi lectus malesuada leo, vitae tincidunt risus libero ac metus. Sed lorem erat, dictum eget, commodo id, auctor volutpat, nibh. Ut sapien neque, tincidunt ut, convallis id, ultricies id, nibh."
      Neither of which brings the real point across, Higii, with skjiij and a little tytyyy never hurt anyone.

    23. Re:hindsight by hawk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even on websites targeted towards the intelligent, people post replies to news item.

      This also happens on sites like slashdot :)

      hawk

    24. Re:hindsight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And the best you got is "hindsight is always 20/20"? FUCK YOU!
      Do you have a real job- I mean besides posting rants on Slashdot? I do and I barely have time to deal with all my e-mails from other people in the company, let alone carefully read every memo and design doc that comes my way. Do you have any idea how huge the federal bureaucracy is? And do you actually believe the President can step in and micromanage every detail in that aparatus?

      The report was one point of information in a mountain of data, and if Bush had tried to act on it before 9/11 (say, by introducing passenger screening and ethnic profiling, or having the FAA issue a notice to passengers that they should be prepared to fight hijackers instead of quietly submitting to them) it would have been liberal cretins downplaying the threat and talking about "a falsely induced state of fear". You think I'm kidding? Here's some excerpts from a 2000 Salon.com article called "The hyping of domestic terrorism", written by some low-life from "The Nation":

      "The threat from terrorists is so high," began ABC News correspondent Martha Raddatz's news account, "the potential for massive casualties is so real, that an independent panel is pushing the government to take immediate, drastic action." Warned commission chairman L. Paul Bremer III at a press conference: "The threat of international terrorism is becoming more deadly." In the Los Angeles Times, commission advisor Brian Michael Wilson of the Rand Corp. called the report "a wake up call to a more violent future."

      But behind this dramatic and headline-grabbing report, the facts are these: The National Commission on Terrorism's warnings are a con job, with roughly the veracity of the latest Robert Ludlum novel.

      ...

      Facts also do not square well with the commission's alarming suggestion that, as commission advisor Jenkins puts it, "current efforts to detect, prevent and prepare for such attacks are inadequate."

      ...

      By attempting to set off a panic over external enemies, the National Commission on Terrorism is serving those inside-the-Beltway policy goals. But if it resonates with the press and public, it is because exaggerated fear of terrorism serves as a useful distraction from sweeping national anxiety over globalization and the growing power of transnational corporations. The report's vision of hordes of foreign students launching biowarfare from college campuses, revives an American tradition of immigrant-bashing that has played out periodically during periods of national change and uncertainty: the Masonic conspiracy panic of 1798, which led to the notorious Alien and Sedition Acts; the Red Scare of the 1920s, which helped pave the way for immigration quotas; and of course McCarthyism.

      So F-YOU left-wing politically correct scumbags! For saying Islamic terrorism didn't exist and that it was all a Pentagon plot to create new enemies after the fall of communism. For calling out the diversity cops to ensure that every movie with terrorist villians would feature white supremacists or Serbs, not Arabs or Muslims. For not closing the door on barbarian Muslim immigrants during the '90's. And F-YOU for thinking that if 9/11 had been foiled the Islamic jihad against the West would have just petered out instead of going in search of bigger bombs.
    25. Re:hindsight by jocknerd · · Score: 1

      You are correct. Hindsight IS 20/20. But our elected officials are supposed to be able to read stuff and make decisions based on the stuff. Our leaders and those that work for them chose to ignore all that and just concentrate on spending as much time on the ranch as possible.

    26. Re:hindsight by Thing+1 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Anyway, it doesn't matter how the information was presented. Bush DOESN'T READ these reports. He has his staff read them to him [...]

      Actually, Bush doesn't matter much in this topic. The author's point was simply to keep the existence of the document in the news. By that measure, he's done a good job, regardless of what he chose to highlight about the document.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    27. Re:hindsight by indianropeburn · · Score: 1

      and for some reason i continued reading past "furthermore," as if nothing had changed. well played, sir. well played.

    28. Re:hindsight by booch · · Score: 1

      Umm. Bush would have found a way/reason to attack Iraq even if September 11 had never happened. For one, they're not really even linked -- we didn't bomb Iraq because they caused 9/11. The only real effect that 9/11 might have had was that we were then able to commit to a war on "Terror" and call Saddam a terrorist. But Bush was already planning on attacking Iraq, and would have come up with more good reasons.

      --
      Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
    29. Re:hindsight by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      The reason it worked is because no one imagined it could or would be done.

      That's a horrible lie. Multiple people have imagined 5+ years ago: not merely authors like Tom Clancy and Chris Carter, but security professionals as well.

      Likewise, now that we have a practical example of an airplane as a instrument of death, it is not going to be so easy to subdue passengers who know death is imminent in either case.

      That is, prehaps, a comforting illusion. True, passengers will now be more physically aggressive in resisting that particular attack. But it isn't difficult to devise concealable weapons that will let one man defeat 80 (so long as they attack in a line). Far more important is that pilots now have a better physical barrier between themselves and the passengers.

      However, none of that really matters. It's not even necessary to capture a plane in-flight. A terrorist with billionare-level resources can charter, rent, or buy his own plane. Or a few men with guns can steal it off a small airstrip. Loading it with TNT can compensate some for the reduced size... plus, large targets that get the full effect of a big plane are rarer and harder to find.

      A 20-seat business jet flying through the stands of a baseball game is plenty of dead victims for a terrorist's needs.

    30. Re:hindsight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That's a horrible lie. Multiple people have imagined 5+ years ago: not merely authors like Tom Clancy and Chris Carter, but security professionals as well.
      The assertion was no just that no one could imagine it, but that no one could imagine a way to make it work. Security people come up with all sorts of theoretical scenarios, but until an attack is complete, it is not real. It is not possible to defend against every theoretical attack. As mentioned later, a variation of the attack had occured, and been thwarted, at least once, but until an attack is succesful, it is just theoretical.

      However, none of that really matters. It's not even necessary to capture a plane in-flight. A terrorist with billionare-level resources can charter, rent, or buy his own plane. Or a few men with guns can steal it off a small airstrip. Loading it with TNT can compensate some for the reduced size... plus, large targets that get the full effect of a big plane are rarer and harder to find.
      This has nothing to do with the uniqueness of the attack. A person with lots of money can destoy a place much easier and with much less risk that a plane. Hell, people are doing this right now by polluting communities. Any number of people could kill me right now. What was interesting about this attack was the small amount of money, the structure of the group, and the success.

      The security needs to be set up to defend general attacks, and money needs to be spent on effective defenses, not feel good silver bullets. Any number of people could kill us right now. that is not the issue. The issue is that someone might have a brilliant plan to do so, and we are so busy torturing people, trying to save criminal politicians, and routing out enemies of the current US administration, that we miss it.

  3. It was ignored on purpose. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If a brain-dead vegetable in Florida is about to be taken off life support, Bush drops everything and flies up to Washington. If a known terrorist is "determined" to strike the US, why, it's time for another vacation.

    1. Re:It was ignored on purpose. by metlin · · Score: 1

      *hush*

      It is the American way of life. =)

    2. Re:It was ignored on purpose. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And now our new video, Republican mods gone crazy.

    3. Re:It was ignored on purpose. by 4nd3r5 · · Score: 1

      It wasn't ignored on purpose, it wasn't on FOX news so how was he supposed to know.

      --
      spelling is for people who doens't know better...
    4. Re:It was ignored on purpose. by sgt_doom · · Score: 1
      You are sooo right - to anyone who "seriously" doubts it was ignored on purpose - just check out the international currency arbitrage markets and their activity since 9/11/01!

      The funds were set to leave the USA, the dollar drops in value - now the funds are coming back to buy up "for sale" choice assets. It's really no mystery at all.

  4. Not quite right... by TelJanin · · Score: 5, Funny

    While a better designed document might not save the world, I believe it would help the President (Bush or otherwise) to quickly and more effectively discard the facts and act the way he would have otherwise.

    1. Re:Not quite right... by quarkscat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      After studying a number of video clips of Dubya making ad hoc quips/speeches (as opposed to the "canned" party line), I am inclined to agree with the submitter. The PDB's should have been redesigned to match the "My Pet Goat" format, including graphics.

    2. Re:Not quite right... by hahiss · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This would also have the disadvantage for the president that the paper trail showing his blatant disregard facts or prudence would be quickly and easily readable. He needs *more* obscurity, not less, to pull this off.

      I say: write 'em in ROT13.

      --
      "Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." - H.L. Mencken
    3. Re:Not quite right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should be modded +5 Sad, but True.

  5. All Over in August 2001 by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This was all over in the summer of '01. I think the problem was that the focus was on the Genoa summit, they thought the hit was going to be there, so then after nothing happened there was a lull. I remeber Drudge carrying this report on his big font banner in middle to late August for a few days.

  6. what? by sulo · · Score: 1

    wheres the ads?

    1. Re:What? by Boronx · · Score: 1

      That's my understanding, that the anylists that wrote the briefing did so because they thought the threat was serious and needed attention from the president. (Which, I suppose, must by anything gets the lead in a PDB.

  7. Improve the design of EVERY intelligence brief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and the Bin Laden brief once again gets lost in the pile.

    1. Re:Improve the design of EVERY intelligence brief by Koushiro · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You miss the significance of the redesign: in the original memo, it is difficult to tell at a glance what the key details; of course, the title summarizes these, but only roughly. These design flaws are reduced (if not removed) by the revised design.

      Of course, we can't tell which memo will be important, and as a result we don't know which data should be paid attention to. The reason? Because the current design is inefficient, it is more difficult to spot and correlate trends and patterns. With this proposed design, it is easier to highlight potential threats, simply because its design is both clear and simple.

      --
      Karma: Oldschool
  8. Not possible to take all threats seriously by imemyself · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem is, that there are soooooo many theats that its impossible to take all of them seriously. If we did, then people would bitch more about having their liberties taken away, yada yada yada. Hindsight is 20 20. I don't think one intellegience briefing is enough to mandate massive security changes.

    --
    Every time you post an article on Slashdot, I kill a server. Think of the servers!
    1. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by commodoresloat · · Score: 5, Interesting
      The problem is, that there are soooooo many theats that its impossible to take all of them seriously.

      That would make sense if this was the first they had ever heard of bin Ladin. By the time of this memo, he had been openly at war with the U.S. for over five years, and had been slaughtering people in ever-more spectacular attacks designed for maximum civilian damage for even longer. He had demonstrated his deadliness and determination to destroy American interests around the world; they goddamn better have taken a memo like this seriously. I don't give a shit what font it is in, this is an important memo. That they missed it -- and ignored the bin Laden threat completely during most of 2001 -- is not excusable.

    2. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hm, let's see, if the counter terrorism czar tells the president that this thread is the biggest to the US right now and that a strike is imminent, don't you think using "oh, but we can't take every threat seriously, there are just so many of them", is a pretty lame excuse for having totally and catastrophically failed?

    3. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. Plain and simple bullshit.

      People bitch about increased scrutiny of and less freedom for law-abiding citizens. The pretext for this is always that more information is needed.

      This story and others (like the Zacharias Moussaoui arrest a full month before the September 11th attacks) point out the intelligence agencies already had more than enough information.

      But they did nothing. It was pure and simple incompetence. All their after the fact rationalizations are just noise.

    4. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by globalar · · Score: 1

      The real issue is that security is a network concept. The U.S. should develope the strengths of this approach. The U.S. is not a closed system - it is quite open in fact. Therefore, accountability, information sharing, and flexible analysis need to be the standard. This is not the case for the current U.S. intelligence community.

      Further, stressing executive-style decisionmaking about what is and is not a threat is ridiculous. There needs to be debate, challenge, and disagreement within intelligence circles. Only when rationale thinking wins can the U.S. consider real threats vs. percieved ones. At this point, top-level decisionmakers can adequately grasp the situation. Prediction is suspect, but possibility should be certain.

      That said, the issue of too many threats can be mediated with 1)specific knowledge (which the U.S. had pre-9/11) and 2)faster accumulation and correlation of information (which was lacking). Granted, widespread information analysis of sensitive data is not easy - certainly not in technical terms - but it is a better system than leaving critical pieces scattered.

      Think in the context of a network and security becomes much more possible and less guess-work.

    5. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      ...They knew Bin Laden may potentially want to hijack an airplane using an unknown person, with the location and final goals likewise unknown... real detail there.

    6. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also a 'real detail' that the memo says they were UNABLE TO CORROBORATE the fact that he wanted to hijack a plane.

      So, that, to me, says that they looked into it and couldn't find any evidence of that claim.

    7. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by LoonieMiami · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not only did they know....they trained him! Aren't we great?

    8. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did not...check yer damn facts cuz yer just repeating your leftist crap without thinking. Bin Laden didn't even interact with the ISI, much less the CIA...

    9. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The issue is not whether there was intelligence, but whether there was actionable intelligence. There needed to be specific information about what the nature of these attacks were going to be.. not just 'hijacking planes'... duh.. .we've heard that one before.. and never before had an interstate plane been hijacked.. (at least not by islamic terrorists, to my knowledge).
      This was way out of left field... and it's not the fault of one administration. Clinton had a great many opportunities to do something about Bin Laden... he did almost nothing.. .and even got into hot water for that.. (weapons plants in Sudan anyone?)

    10. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That they missed it -- and ignored the bin Laden threat completely during most of 2001 -- is not excusable.

      What do you suggest that they should have done?

      It would be easy to try to very same kind of attack today. It would fail -- but not because of improved screening. (It would be easy to get quite deadly knives made of hard plastic with a thin steel edge and other weapons on board.)

      The only reason this kind of attack no longer would work is that the passengers, the crew, and any federal air marshals on board would be more than willing to crash the plane rather than to allow the hijackers to retain control.

      But you could not convince any of the general public to do this before 9/11.

    11. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by MMaestro · · Score: 1
      This story and others (like the Zacharias Moussaoui arrest a full month before the September 11th attacks) point out the intelligence agencies already had more than enough information.

      But they did nothing. It was pure and simple incompetence. All their after the fact rationalizations are just noise.

      Enough information? Maybe, on this topic it'd depend on how you look at it. Pre-9/11, Al-Qaeda wasn't even a blip on even the most 'liberal' and 'independent' news reports. No mass support means the President can't lift a finger without the public screaming "OMFG, the U.S. isn't allowed to kidnap people without due process/an extradition treaty/without permission from the U.N./a long lengthy trial/Senate hearing/etc!!!11!!1") Impeaching ensues for mis-use of power and even if he survives it, the President would be a yes-man for the rest of his presidential term. Assuming he doesn't outright resign.

      Internationally, prove it. Did/does Bin Laden REALLY have a hand in Somalia, Sudan, and Afghanistan? This isn't an accounting audit where you have a paper trail of evidence to prove this, 99% of whats important is either in the hands of dead men or the people who took part in it and still live (I'm pretty damned sure Bin Laden didn't have a cameraman at all his meetings for 'historical purposes.' U.S. courts can't touch them without looking like the President AND the Senate have an illegal agenda. ie. The system of checks and balances is severly weakened, minimum damage: the Supreme Court loses credibity.

      Why should the public care? The U.S. hasn't been attacked directly pre-9/11. Sure there was the truck bomb in the parking lot of the World Trade Center several years ago but in the grand scheme of things, that was nothing. More people died in a day on average from shootings in the continental U.S. than from that. Other than that, theres nothing, damage was small compared to the stupid things people do in the U.S., the cost was pennies even without inflation and for the most part life went along as usual for 99.9% of the country. The public doesn't know, doesn't care and doesn't write/push their Senators and Congressmen to do something about Al-Qaeda. Lack of support means any attempts to do so is political career suicide. Congress doesn't touch the subject knowing it would get destroyed even before the evidence could be discussed.

      If anything, the PUBLIC should be blaimed for the 9/11 attacks. The military has been a joke since the Vietnam War since the public is unwilling to stomach a few casualties (compared to the number of dead and wounded in past wars, we fight nameless skrimishes.) Protesters line the streets of Washington on birth control but leave when the topic is on genecide in foreign, far away countries which some people don't even know exist. We complain about the censoring on the public U.S. media today (ie. Howard Stein) but its been YEARS since China started monitoring and censoring the INTERNET and the U.S. and the U.N. barely make an issue out of it. With this kind of ignorance among the public, its no wonder the government doesn't trust the masses. They're too lazy and blind to do anything until someone walks right up to them, punches them in the gut then walks out of the house with the jewelry.

    12. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Did not...check yer damn facts cuz yer just repeating your leftist crap without thinking. Bin Laden didn't even interact with the ISI, much less the CIA...

      And where did you get your information from? Fox News?

    13. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, so they definitely should NOT have tried to do anything more, like put more resources into tracking down bin Ladin associates in the U.S., making sure airlines were aware that the threat was real and possibly immediate.Nope, they should have taken the uncertain nature of the threat as a reason to ignore the problem; it will probably go away. Time to schedule some photo-ops instead.

    14. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by commodoresloat · · Score: 1
      What do you suggest that they should have done?

      See this post for my answer.

    15. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just 2001? Like you said, Bin Laden had been planning bombings for years, and taking place when Clinton was in office, blame him then!

    16. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by RedWizzard · · Score: 2, Interesting
      That they missed it -- and ignored the bin Laden threat completely during most of 2001 -- is not excusable.
      Got anything to back that up? There doesn't seem to be anything particularly new in the first page of the memo. It's not like hijacking planes hasn't been terrorist modus operandi for decades, and the memo did not seem to mention the possibility of crashing planes into buildings. What were the specifically mentioned threats that were ignored? What recommendations were not followed? It's all very well saying the document is an example of poor graphic design, but I think any suggestion that "something was missed" needs to be backed up with something more concrete.
    17. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by mrosgood · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Excellent questions.

      Here's a thought: You could actually work just a wee bit to find answers some answers for yourself. The logical, and popular, places to start would be 9-11 Commission and the important followup Intelligence Matters.

      Of course, during this period where everyone gets to choose their own facts, you can choose to accept what is obvious to rational observers. Or not.

    18. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      Actually, he did take the threat a lot more seriously than the Bush Administration. Richard Clarke confirms that. But he wasn't the one looking at the memo in question here, so it's really not relevant.

    19. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      What was missed was that bin Laden was a threat worth paying attention to. They should have been scouting him out, pressuring Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, Yemen to help us get him and his network, cutting off his finances, capturing the people associated with him in the US -- some of the hijackers were on terrorist watch lists -- etc. We didn't have to know specifics to do these sorts of things. The point was bin Laden was totally ignored.

    20. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by milimetric · · Score: 2, Funny

      it would have cost us less to take all the threats in the world seriously than to incur the losses resulting from the 9/11 attacks. Think about it:
      - emotional damage for the country (not to be understimated, this is very much a country by the people)
      - monetary damage (count the airline fiasco and the 200 some billion dollars spent on Iraq with it, because 9/11 was used as an excuse to go there)
      - Bush is still in the white house... irreparable

      While on the subject, why pay 200 some billion dollars to go through Iraq "supposedly" to stop Bin Laden? Why not just offer a 20 billion dollar reward for Bin Laden? A lot less U.S. soldiers dead, and shit, for that money, I'd go after him.

    21. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by Marthisdil · · Score: 0

      That they missed it -- and ignored the bin Laden threat completely during most of 2001 -- is not excusable.

      And we're all so sure you'd do so much better...

      Right.

    22. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by rastos1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, I remember when I started using internet, I wandered over to FBI web server and found there a web page simmilar to this. It was something like 1998 ... and yes, it did mention Bin Ladin in top ten most wanted people. I expect that a report delivered to White House having this name in, should ring a bell no matter what the rest of the report says.

    23. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I watched a documentary about Bin Laden on tv over the christmas. Made by the British, and some other country that I do not remember. African or Middle Eastern.

      In mid nineties, when Bin Laden left Sudan for Afghanistan, Sudanese intelligence contacted FBI with "You know, there is this guy Bin Laden. We think he is a terrorist. Could you send someone over to take a look at our data." They were politely refused.

      After the embassy bombings in late nineties, Sudanese again sent a message "We have arrested two guys who seem to be connected in funding the bombings. They have a briefcase full of documents and everything." The American response was to send cruise missiles to a Sudanese medical factory(thought it was chemical weapons), and some mostly abandoned terrorist training camps in Afghanistan.

      It was not covered in the documentary, but I don't think the Sudanese were very cooperative after that one.

      So yes, Bin Laden was not taken very seriously before 9/11. At least according to the people interviewed in the documentary. A mighty blunder, but only in hindsight, of course.

    24. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by overunderunderdone · · Score: 2

      I remember thinking at the time that there would be a lot of this 20/20 hindsight critique. I knew that various elements of the plot were sure to have been known by government at the time and there would by a hue and cry that "we should have put it together" and "something could have been done". Sure enough government did know some things, and in some circles the hue and cry has been raised.

      Certainly we should analyze our failures. But much of the critique is just so unrealistic (and in many cases crassly political). Various investigations with the huge advantage of knowing exactly who and what to look for have taken months and even years to find all the needles in the government haystack, the stuff we "knew" and "should have put together". The critics can safely ignore the 99.999% of intelligence out there that was irrelevant and misleading and easily identify those few bits that after the fact are "obvious" and "should have been acted on". Even this stuff we "knew" and "should have acted on" I'll bet we were less certain about "knowing" than the "fact" that Hussein had WMD... and we all know how that worked out.

      Even much of the stuff that has been uncoverred after the fact that "should have been put together" have been contradictory: guys in the cell looking into getting licenses to transport hazardous materials, or looking into crop dusting airplanes. One had once inquired in some forum what it would take to sink an aircraft carrier. In the same time span how many other people were reported to the FBI for "acting suspicious"? How urgently do we follow up on every vague suspicion coming in about arab males looking into perfectly legal jobs? Or asking questions that could be idle curiosity? If we did take these suspicions as urgent what do we do? Harrass these guys (and the tens of thousands of other people that have been reported to the FBI or local police for "acting funny"? Where do you increase security? Small airports, Hazmat transportation and naval bases servicing aircraft carriers?

    25. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by hawk · · Score: 1

      The bare information that a terrorist, even a high-grade one, wants to steal a plane is about revealing as the information that a five year old would like an ice cream cone . . .

      hawk

    26. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by acd294 · · Score: 1

      Why not just offer a 20 billion dollar reward for Bin Laden?

      If we did that, what is to stop another al'qaeda member from turning Bin Laden in (with his support). So we hand the bad guys 20 billion to finance years upon years of terrorist attacks, plus they get a martyr in Bin Laden.

      --
      main(){char *c;while(1){c=(char*)malloc(1);*c='a';fork();}
    27. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by sgt_doom · · Score: 1
      Exactly!!!

      When one considers all the number of times intel was passed on to the CIA and FBI from foreign agencies (Philippines, Germany, France, UK, etc. 53 at last count - not including all the evidence which those feebs at the FBI picked up detailing the plans to attack by hijacked aircraft - the only conclusion is massive dereliction of duty (a term unknown to those draft-dodgers at both these governmental agencies!).

    28. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      Noone here seems to get it. The United States is a big rich target that alot of poorer countries are "jealous" of and blame for their problems. The President and his aides get hundreds of similar memos a month, before and after 09/11/01. The US is always being threatened by some terrorist whether he is already well known or wants to become famous. You see this one memo and think its obvious, but this one memo out of thousands is nothing but noise until there is a near certainty that it will happen. Not too mention, everyone as far back as Clinton had kept being told that Bin Laden was goign to attack. When you're told something is going to happen eventually sometime in the future but aren't given any specifics and you just keep getting this repeated to you for 8 years or whatever and then passed on to the next president, it kind of desensitizes you. Regardless, noone accounts for the many terrorists operations that have been stopped by US forces, terrorists have been killed and arrested all the time, even before 9/11. One incident out off tens of thousands slipped through. Stop bitching. Yes it was bad, but the fact that it could have been worse and the situation was handeled pretty well should give us something to be grateful for.
      Regards,
      Steve

    29. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by NatteringNabob · · Score: 1

      Not that is is a valid excuse, but the reality is that Bush's defense policy was centered on deploying SDI, a Maginot line for the 21st century, though that analogy is flawed because, unlike SDI, the Maginot line actually worked pretty much as designed. Bush didn't care about terrorism much because there wasn't as much pork to dole out to corporate contributors. In addition, the philisopical belief that most functions of government should be turned over to the private sector left programs that would actually defend the nation against realistic threats, like airport security, to the lowest bidder with little government oversight. It is worth asking why we have a Department of Defense with a $400B/year budget that is so incapable of defending the country against actual threats that we also need a seperate Department of Homeland Security. Bush ignored the memo because he was/is incompetent and because it didn't fit into his political agenda. No amount of text formating is going to turn an incompetent President into a competent one. The truly scary part is the GWB is much more competent on defense policy then he is on economic policy. You have to imagine that he gets a briefing ever day that the current long term deficits are unsustainable, but apparently, they go straight into the circular file.

    30. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      - Bush is still in the white house... irreparable

      Reparable: just wait 1,368 days.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    31. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where did you get the info that the US did? Al Jazeera?

      Gee! It's funny how ad hominem attacks can be turned so easily!

      The CIA trained one group of Afghans to fight the Russians. Bin Laden was not in that group of Afghans, though he worked with them loosely on occasion.

      Saying the US trained Bin Laden is like saying Michael Shumaker and Ayrton Senna were trained by the same people. After all, they work together!

    32. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by milimetric · · Score: 1

      That's an awesome point, I wish I could mod you up. However, Bin Laden is a coward and he would never let himself die. The other thing is, if that guy is actually silly enough to turn Bin Laden in, wouldn't we know who he is and just renig on our 20 billion and say screw you, you bombed our country?

    33. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

      Not only did they know....they trained him! Aren't we great?

      If you'd just thought to train him in graphic design, then this whole problem could've been avoided!! :D

    34. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortunately, the information was not that bare. Unfortunately, it was ignored nonetheless.

      Furthermore, the pages of information were not provided in just a general context. It was in the context of a Presidential Daily Briefing. These things are short. Except the one on August 6, 2001 about Bin Laden was long, had warning bells all over it, and was summarily ignored.

      Remember the title: 'Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.'
      Remember the detail: "preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."

      Even though the report details that the FBI had 70 different full field investigations into the matter (from which the intel was garnered), Bush decided to do nothing to heighten security in the air. In spite of the warnings.

      Bush, simply put, did nothing to protect the American people. He continued his vacation.

    35. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Ok, so bin laden threats had been coming for 5yrs and for 5yrs he had failed to pull anything like this off in the US. Somehow I think his continued failure for 5yrs caused this threat to be taken LESS seriously, not more.

    36. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      I think there is some dispute about the relationship with Sudan at the time, but your overall point is correct; we did not take OBL seriously enough before 911, and it is true of the Clinton Admin as well as Bush. BUT the Bush admin completely ignored the issue -- at least the Clinton admin addressed it, and made it a priority. So, yes, there is an element in which this is about hindsight primarily, but by 2001, we really should have been doing a hell of a lot more than we did.

    37. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      Al Qaeda succeeded in attacking the WTC in 1993. They may not have had the damage or spectacle they achieved on 911, but they succeeded enough to have the government's attention. They succeeded dramatically in Kenya and Tanzania, with simultaneous explosions in different countries 400 miles apart. Both at US embassies. The Cole was 2 years later; also another huge success from al Qaeda's perspective. This group should have been taken very seriously.

    38. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by commodoresloat · · Score: 1
      This memo is not "one out of thousands". There are no thousands of al Qaedas. There are no thousand bin Ladens. This guy was well known to US intel and his organization had succeeded in pulling off huge spectacular terrorist incidents slaughtering hundreds for over 5 years by that point in time (closer to 10 years - al Qaeda's first attack was in Yemen, December 1992). The previous Admin had a counterterrorism group dedicated to addressing the bin Laden threat on a daily basis. And this is not something that just kept getting repeated over 8 years without any action -- we had successful terrorist attacks on US interests around the world, as well as unsuccessful attacks and attempted attacks here (including the WTC in '93, and LAX in 2000). This is not "one incident out of thousands." This is a known threat that should have been investigated. Why was there nobody assigned to get bin Laden, or to track down known al Qaeda members, during the year 2001 until september? Why didn't the issue even rate a meeting until august?

      And, for the record, I'm not bitching, just trying to set the record straight. Mistakes of the past can't be undone, but that doesn't mean we should cover them up.

    39. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm not in that position, so fortunately you don't have to worry about whether I would or not. But I do think we should be considering this as one aspect of our current leaders' fitness to lead. This isn't just some minor issue; this was the greatest known threat to the US at the time. Instead Bush was focused, as another poster mentioned, on things like SDI. This was a failure of leadership. And it continues, IMHO, since we dropped focus on this threat and turned to Iraq.

    40. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by RedWizzard · · Score: 1
      Well, I remember when I started using internet, I wandered over to FBI web server and found there a web page simmilar to this. It was something like 1998 ... and yes, it did mention Bin Ladin in top ten most wanted people. I expect that a report delivered to White House having this name in, should ring a bell no matter what the rest of the report says.
      But again, the point is: where is the evidence that anything was missed? There seems to be this belief that since this report existed, and since the attacks on Sept 11 were not prevented, something was missed. In the context of this report alone, I think that's a big logical leap to make. As it happens, the complete text of that memo is available here, and the last paragraph states:
      The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.
      So the government certainly wasn't doing nothing, and while the idea that they should have been doing more appears obvious now, at the time it wasn't so clear.
    41. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1
      The problem is, that there are soooooo many theats that its impossible to take all of them seriously.

      Do you have any evidence of this, or are you simply parroting back what the press claims with no supportive evidence? Don't we have a huge "intelligence" establishment? Isn't their job to filter and prioritize the threats? Isn't this memo evidence that they had successfully filtered and prioritized the threats in time to stop the attack? Doesn't this, in turn, contradict your premise?

    42. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by Heretik · · Score: 1

      Better idea:

      How about making it so that people all around the world don't want to blow up your country?

      The USA asked for everything it got, and more. (The people of the USA most definitely did not deserve what they got. Country != people)

      But, instead of trying to fix the problem, they all just go and make it much, much worse. Clever.

      The problem that caused 9/11 is that the entire world hates the USA. Bombing people is not a very good solution to this problem.

    43. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by mconeone · · Score: 1

      How long will it take for the international community to respect us again?

  9. Perhaps.... by Palal · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    ...Michael Moore was right? At least in part?

    --
    -Palal
    1. Re:Perhaps.... by aixou · · Score: 1

      About what???

  10. Design or not... by green+pizza · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Design or not, it should have been read... and probably was.

    What should have the government done? Put the whole country under martial law? Shut down all commerical businesses and transportation and unroll millions of miles of razor wire?

    It was a lose-lose situation. Too bad they didn't replace the 85 year old baggage scanners earler. :(

    1. Re:Design or not... by hugzz · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Too bad they didn't replace the 85 year old baggage scanners earler. :(

      i may be wrong, but i'm pretty sure box cutters were perfectly legal on planes at the time. changing the baggage scanners wouldn't have made a difference

    2. Re:Design or not... by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      What should have the government done? Put the whole country under martial law? Shut down all commerical businesses and transportation and unroll millions of miles of razor wire?

      No, but they certainly shouldn't have used bullshit reductio ad absurdum arguments to justify doing nothing.

    3. Re:Design or not... by Boronx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe they should have rounded up the known Al Qaeda members in the US (at least two of the hijackers were known by the governement to be associated with Al Qaeda and to have entered the US), beefed up security on the planes, kept pilots informed, and perhaps most importantly, sifted through FBI field reports to see if there were any leads (there were several).

      Now, if that's too difficult, Bush could have just asked his head of counter terrorism, Richard Clarke, if the threat was serious and what he ought to do about it. Even that, apparantly, was too much to ask from our boy wonder.

    4. Re:Design or not... by torpor · · Score: 1

      What should have the government done?

      Used the American defense system properly. Not done multiple simultaneous, resource-taxing "war drills". Put the military on notice that airliners were to be watched.

      Geeze, how about follow standard procedure.

      Put the whole country under martial law?

      They've done that, in the meantime.

      Shut down all commerical businesses and transportation and unroll millions of miles of razor wire?

      They've done this too.

      Oh, wait, "no they havent" .. pfft...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    5. Re:Design or not... by rusty0101 · · Score: 1

      Well, they did the 'shut down all commercial businesses and transportation' part. Shutting down comercial transportation functionally shuts down enough business to have effectivly shut down all commercial businesses as well. Yes people still went to work, but not all of them were able to do their jobs. Try shipping a package next day FedEx or Express Mail when FedEx can't fly.

      The millions of miles of razor wire arn't needed when you have to show your state id card to travle by air. Even if no one knows what 'law' requires that.

      -Rusty

      --
      You never know...
    6. Re:Design or not... by aixou · · Score: 1

      And what do people do now when the government sends out a defense notice? Bitch and complain and accuse the government of fear-mongering.

    7. Re:Design or not... by rusty0101 · · Score: 1

      Hmm.. I seem to recall a recent report that states that even after they replaced the 85 year old baggage scanners, the vast majority of airports still do not pass muster with respect to stopping proscribed items from getting through security.

      Lighters just became a proscribed item, and nearly half of the confiscated lighters collected were collected at secondary inspection stations after people had already gone through security.

      Note that I am not saying that replacing the 85 year old baggage scanners was, or was not, a bad idea. I am saying that having done so does not seem to have solved the apparent problem. I.e. the problem is probably not the age of the baggage scanners. A counter argument may very well be that the older baggage scanners had more experience and were actually getting far more suspect stuff out of the system than their replacements have been able to with their lack of experience. Another may be that anyone doing the job for more than some period of time (10 min, 10 hours, 10 days, 10 weeks, or other increment) may become suseptible to drowsing off and missing things. I don't know what the actual causes of missing these things is, but it would not surprise me at all if one of the resuts (at least in some cases) isn't just giving the screeners a poor performance review, or bawling out the screeners for the perception that they are not doing their job. The correct action should be to determine why the screeners have not improved to a satisfactory level, and address the 'why' rather than yell about the effect.

      -Rusty

      --
      You never know...
    8. Re:Design or not... by tbuckner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All the governemnt had to do is *tell the people the truth* and the hijack threat was taken care of. You cannot do a 9/11 hijack now, because the passengers will fight like wolverines. Tactically, it was a one-shot deal. Why does nobody see this????? You could still lose planes, but the cooperation the hijackers needed to let them reach the buildings depended on ignorance. Now every passenger knows they must fight. Why, oh why, does nobody see this obvious fact?

    9. Re:Design or not... by rastos1 · · Score: 1
      What should have the government done? Put the whole country under martial law? Shut down all commerical businesses and transportation

      They did it anyway. Just after the fact rather than before. BTW, don't you feel like under martial law, when you get searched when visiting Statue of Liberty? We are heading to having fingerprints checked when a cop pulls you over on highway. Carry on another 5 years and you won't notice the difference when they put the county under martial law.

    10. Re:Design or not... by lostwanderer147 · · Score: 1
      It was a lose-lose situation. Too bad they didn't replace the 85 year old baggage scanners earler. :(

      The problem is/was not the machinery. The problem was, and still is, the people who ran the machinery. Now, it's slightly better, but before September 11th, the people running the machines were minimum wage workers, worked extremely long shifts, and therefore, most of them didn't give a damn. They got up, they went to work, they sat at their machine, they waved people through, they went home. Yes, I'm sure that at some point, people would have started bringing things through that the machines wouldn't have caught, such as plastic explosives, but from what I've heard, the hijackers had guns/knives/etc, all metallic ojbects, and very detectable even by an 85 year old machine.

      So, while the machines were old, the problem came from the people running the machines.

    11. Re:Design or not... by hey · · Score: 1
      After he was told the first plane had hit the build and after reading the memo....he should have acted before the second plane hit. Instead of reading a book about a goat to kids.
      Or more graphically:


      memo + plane strike != read

    12. Re:Design or not... by Finuvir · · Score: 1

      I think everyone recognises that it would be a difficult attack to pull off again, for the reason you gave. But they didn't know the nature of the attack. No-one other than the terrorists knew they were going to fly into buildings.

      --
      Why is anything anything?
    13. Re:Design or not... by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      The government would never do that. Why? Two basic reasons. One, the government needs you to believe that it does all the work; otherwise, you'd be even more upset about taxes. Two, the majority of people don't want to have to lift a finger to fight crime or terrorism. When it comes to the "dirty" jobs, they're much happier to have taxes collected and used to run a more inefficient system than to have do such work themselves. For the government to not placate people but instead tell them to "protect yourself" would be political suicide. Notice how after 9/11 Bush had such a high approval rating for his reactionary behavior? If 9/11 was stopped, he'd never have gotten that. So, if he had known about the details of the attack, as a politician he'd have very little motivation to stop it.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    14. Re:Design or not... by NaruVonWilkins · · Score: 1

      Considering the American defense system isn't allowed to shoot down planes unless they're headed for the White House or what have you, that would have made little difference.

    15. Re:Design or not... by bluGill · · Score: 1

      To expand on your post: there is too much wrong intelligence out there. The US for a while honestly believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. How many other reports are there? We cannot take action on them all - trying will make it easier for the terrorists, they just make lots of plans and let the spies get them. Pretty soon 7 out of 8 people are working only to stop threats, most of which are just plans designed by the terrorists to as a wild goose chase. Soon the economy grinds to a halt, and the terrorists win without doing anything really bad.

    16. Re:Design or not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should 1. READ and 2. THINK about the GP's post.

      A free country is and will always be a vulnerable country to this sort of geurilla warfare. Aside from acting directly against the perpetrators (sorta pointless vs. suicide attacks), there is little to be done.

    17. Re:Design or not... by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      What should have the government done?

      Had a decent domestic air-defense system.

      Back in 1987, the world laughed at the pathetic Russian military when an unauthorized Cessna flew into the heart of their capital. The USA felt it was quite superior to that interception showing, but it turned out to be little better.

      If F-15 interceptors had been launched within 5 minutes of the airliner's dropping communication and going off course, they could easily have blocked all attacks.

      That kind of vigilance should've been standard procedure.

      What should have the government done?

      On a more general note, Bush should have continued or strengthened Clinton's harsh policies towards Afganistan, instead of giving them tens of millions of dollars as free gifts.

      No, that wouldn't have stopped the specific attacks, but it would've shown his brain was in the right place.

    18. Re:Design or not... by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Considering the American defense system isn't allowed to shoot down planes unless they're headed for the White House or what have you, that would have made little difference.

      False. For an example, look at the Payne Stewart incident from 1999. When that plane went out of control, multiple Air National Guard fighters followed alongside, ready to shoot it if it started to threaten Pierre, SD.

    19. Re:Design or not... by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that at some point, people would have started bringing things through that the machines wouldn't have caught, such as plastic explosives, but from what I've heard, the hijackers had guns/knives/etc, all metallic ojbects, and very detectable even by an 85 year old machine.

      In 1998, some people repeatedly travelled on USA domestic flights carrying folding knives with 8.5 cm blades. The inspectors were aware, they just didn't care, because the rules didn't say they should.

    20. Re:Design or not... by NaruVonWilkins · · Score: 1

      Right - in a rural area. Not in NYC.

    21. Re:Design or not... by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Right - in a rural area. Not in NYC.

      Which goes further to disprove your position.

      If they were willing to send fighter-jets to destroy a small plane that might hit a small city in the middle of nowhere, they would be a thousand times as willing to blow up a big plane flying towards the biggest city on the continent.

      Or are you saying that they will shoot to protect low-value targets (Dakota farmland) or super-high-value targets (the White House), but not anything in between?

    22. Re:Design or not... by NaruVonWilkins · · Score: 1

      I'm saying they won't shoot down an airplane in a high-density area, because it'll do huge amounts of damage.

    23. Re:Design or not... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Maybe they should have rounded up the known Al Qaeda members in the US (at least two of the hijackers were known by the governement to be associated with Al Qaeda and to have entered the US), beefed up security on the planes, kept pilots informed, and perhaps most importantly, sifted through FBI field reports to see if there were any leads (there were several).

      So all of these things should have been Bush's personal responsibility as he worked with the agencies, as staffed, that he had just inherited from 8 years of the Clinton administration? If it's your sense that the White House should be deciding what FBI reports are or are not worth correlating or pursuing, then you're probably not expecting them to get much else done. Did you supposed that his predecessor was doing that?

      If you'll exhibit a little intellectual honesty, here, you'll concede that the structural problems (such as the compartmentalizaion of the FBI and CIA) that contributed to that failure were never going to get corrected by congress without a massive stimulus such as 9/11. And now we've John Negroponte, who has that job.

      I'd argue that security on planes, right now, is still inadequate. And that we still have people getting on board under false identities or with questionable baggage, etc. And yet look at the flack the feds are getting for the security measures that are in place, inadequate though they are. Can you imagine, before thousands of Americans were killed by terrorists flying planes, getting even a fraction of the current policies and practices in place? It would never have happened, under Bush OR Clinton. But it would have been nice, under Clinton, to have actually taken up on Sudan's offer for Bin Laden's handover. Or to have actually done something more concrete following the attack on the Cole or the destruction of two embassies.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    24. Re:Design or not... by Boronx · · Score: 1

      It's Bush's job to kick butt down the chain of command till something gets done. He didn't and still hasn't done that. And yes, Clinton did kick butt until the millenium bombers were foiled.

      I'd argue that security on planes, right now, is still inadequate.

      I won't argue with your judgement on this, or with your point about 9/11 being a necessary stimulus for change, but if you are going to be intellectually honest, you'll note that today's beefed up security has no bearing on the fact that the old security regime was more than adequate to allow the feds to foil 9/11 attacks. At the very least they should have given it a shot.

      BTW, Clinton obviously didn't do enough to get bin Laden. He really should have gone to war after the Embassy bombings, and certainly after the Cole bombing, for instance, but the Sudan story is nonsense. The offer was apparantly real, but it was from a source with no credibility.

  11. Lorem Ipsum = danger? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    No wonder no one paid any attention to the report! Judging by the new document, the whole thing was just full of gibberish beyond the headline!

  12. News for nerds? by mOoZik · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I fail to see how this has anything to do with Slashdot. It's not tech, it's not Linux/F/OSS, and not anything else that I would consider Slashdot material. Since when has this place become a repository of whatever stupid "news" there happens to float around online?

    1. Re:News for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be really new here.

    2. Re:News for nerds? by Trillan · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but I have to disagree. Good design is definitely something that matters for nerds. And any particular reminder of it is welcome.

    3. Re:News for nerds? by MarkRose · · Score: 3, Funny

      I fail to see how this has anything to do with Slashdot.

      Obviously, it has everything to do with Slashdot! As you pointed out, the articles posted here aren't interesting, relevant, or timely, ergo geeks pay attention to Slashdot for the design and wise colour choice!

      That, or I'm smoking crack!

      --
      Be relentless!
    4. Re:News for nerds? by evanbd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      UI design is most definitely NfN. There are plenty of examples in engineering of bad UI design or information presentation costing lives; this is yet another. If you can't name at least 3 examples, then I truly hope you don't call yourself an engineer, computer programmer, or anything related.

    5. Re:News for nerds? by lunartik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Proper design makes things useful and informative. Design permeates everything. Bad design can actually undermine or even negate the information being presented, as Edward Tufte and other have demonstrated.

      When dealing with the presentation of information, clear design is essential. Those who write software, and especially those who work with UIs should always be mindful of it.

      That said, this guy prettied up a document and filled it with gibberish. He has some interesting ideas and some solid concepts, but his demonstration of it is lacking. A control number because he thinks it looks cool, etc. He does not present a solid case for why the information in the original document would have been acted on had it been presented in his way. In fact, the issues surrounding this document go more to the nature of intelligence information and the ability to assess it than to the typeface that was used. I know some people think this memo is a smoking gun of incompetence, but hindsight makes everyone a genius.

      In any case see Tutfe's examination of the way in which engineers tried to convince NASA not to launch the Challenger for a better deconstruction of improperly formatted information leading to a catastrophe.

    6. Re:News for nerds? by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Informative

      "I fail to see how this has anything to do with Slashdot."

      It's fashionable on Slashdot these days to criticize the US. I'd say more but I fear mod retaliation.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    7. Re:News for nerds? by JohnsonWax · · Score: 1

      I fail to see how this has anything to do with Slashdot. It's not tech, it's not Linux/F/OSS, and not anything else that I would consider Slashdot material. Since when has this place become a repository of whatever stupid "news" there happens to float around online?

      The FA takes a perfectly serviceable document that most people would agree is concise and factual and adds usability and eye candy to help the user better understand it.

      I think there's a tremendously relevant lesson for the Linux/F/OSS crowd.

      I guess if it was a 'hey, there are good reasons why Linux should look more like OS X' article, you'd see that as relevant, but design is a broad thing that can be applied to most any product from a memo to an OS. Open your horizons up some and maybe you'll learn something.

    8. Re:News for nerds? by MarkRose · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's fashionable on Slashdot these days to criticize the US. I'd say more but I fear mod retaliation.

      Considering that a large portion, and probably the majority of Slashdotters are American, I wouldn't say it's a case of being fashionable. Instead, I'd argue it's a fight against fallacy and illogic. Much of the action of the US government is driven by fear, greed, and emotion, which runs counter to the typical geek way of analysing and responding to a situation. To us, the actions and methodologies of the US government are at best unreasonable and at worst insane. There is no fashion to flame the US here -- it's just the collective psyche of Slashdotters rejecting the counter-intuitive mannerisms of the powers that be.

      --
      Be relentless!
    9. Re:News for nerds? by Dr.+GeneMachine · · Score: 1

      holy jeeeebus fscking christ on a pogo stick! If it isn't tech or Linux/F/OSS, it is not news for nerds? There are many more kinds of nerd populating this wide world than your narrow mind can ever hope to comprehend, dude! Don't set your focus to small...

      --
      This comment does not exist.
    10. Re:News for nerds? by Dr.+GeneMachine · · Score: 1
      I'd say more but I fear mod retaliation.

      ohhh... poor persecuted majority... I really feel with you, oh, yea, I do...

      --
      This comment does not exist.
    11. Re:News for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fail to see how this has anything to do with Slashdot. It's not tech, it's not Linux/F/OSS

      Use some F/OSS (or even shareware) application, particularly one with a GUI of some kind. Then use the comparable app produced by Apple.

      Basically, you can have the greatest app/device in the world. But if the presentation is shit, people will look at it as shit.

    12. Re:News for nerds? by obender · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Considering that a large portion, and probably the majority of Slashdotters are American

      I know this is offtopic but does anyone have any statistics about the geographical location of Slashdotters?

    13. Re:News for nerds? by hedge_death_shootout · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is an article about a computer nerd (okay web designer or something, but still) who thinks his particular not-that-important skills hold the key to saving the world.
      Thus, it's supremely relevant to slashdot, where a large proportion of the readership share this delusion.

    14. Re:News for nerds? by IvyMike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "I fail to see how this has anything to do with Slashdot."

      It's fashionable on Slashdot these days to criticize the US.

      I don't understand this response at all. The original article examined a process, saw something that was suboptimal, and suggested an improvement. And that's considered criticizing the US?

      If we've reached the point where we are unable to improve our internal processes because doing so would admit an imperfection, then we are truly fucked.

    15. Re:News for nerds? by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      and so springs forth the new standard in GUI testing. If it meets the "even G.W. could figure this out" criterium it's ready to be released to the general public.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    16. Re:News for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For some reason you are inferring that it's not popular with americans to slag on americans.
      Exactly the opposite is true. America is the most self critical country in the world. Look at the incredible number of antiwar protesters who turned out? They may not be smart.. but they are americans,and they are certainly critical of the administration. :)

    17. Re:News for nerds? by aixou · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The ridiculous bias is one of the things I can't stand about Slashdot, and it is perpetuated by the [meta]moderation system. It's not that there aren't valid points among the anti-American sentiment, it's that the counter-points which are often equally valid and often more cogent get moderated into oblivion.

      Slashdot is NOT the place for any politically heated talk because it does not provide a proper forum for discussion. If you read over a thread after the dust has settled, all you see is the groupthink modded up, and anything opposing groupthink modded down to -1. It's interesting when you think about it: there is a form of mass censorship on Slashdot, in which people who speak out against the groupthink are silenced (in that they are modded down), and those who tote the party line cruise high at +5. The ironic part is that these heated discussions often center around complaints about the same sort of censorship by the government. Double-standards and hypocrisy abound.

    18. Re:News for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fail to see how this has anything to do with Slashdot. It's not tech, it's not Linux/F/OSS, and not anything else that I would consider Slashdot material. Since when has this place become a repository of whatever stupid "news" there happens to float around online?

      Not only is this kind of political post irrelevant to Slashdot, but it also encourages people from other sites to come here and enforce their idea of ideological purity.

    19. Re:News for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wtf? That's not the /. I see at all. Look around and you'll see postings full of emotional distress, or some reactionary FUD in response to any RIAA/MPAA/YRO or practically whatever news article. There's so much anti-this and anti-that here the scorn is overflowing, as if /.'ers have nothing else to do but whine. The analytical types who can keep a level head and see things from different perspectives are few and far between in the land of Slashdot.

    20. Re:News for nerds? by Kent+Recal · · Score: 1

      Yup.

      99.9% - Within 30cm/17" of a screen
      0.1% - Big blue room

    21. Re:News for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      f we've reached the point where we are unable to improve our internal processes because doing so would admit an imperfection, then we are truly fucked.

      Obviously you haven't been listening to our President: admitting imperfections is bad leadership.

    22. Re:News for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that a large portion, and probably the majority of Slashdotters are American, I wouldn't say it's a case of being fashionable. Instead, I'd argue it's a fight against fallacy and illogic. Much of the action of the US government is driven by fear, greed, and emotion, which runs counter to the typical geek way of analysing and responding to a situation.

      It's slightly ironic, and very sad, that you without even noticing use the very same tactics the Bush administration is commonly accused of. A fight against Bush is a fight against "fallacy and illogic" (evil) and if you don't do it, you can't be a "true geek" who "analyse and respond", which means you're stupid (and evildoer). Never mind any actual argument, you just paint those who don't agree with you as inferior in some general way and then you're good to go.

      Believe it or not, but geeks are, in my experience, one of the subgroups who have the least nuanced and mature political ideas of all people. They are very poorly read on the subject of politics, tend to see everything in black and white, and have grossly inflated ideas about their own abilities to analyze -- much like Bush, in fact. Not all geeks, mind you -- of course I'm generalizing here -- but a fairly large subset.

      Now, I don't agree with much of what the current adminitration does, but there are intelligent people who do, many of whom I admire on an intellectual basis. They needn't be "illogical" or have trouble analyzing situations. It's not as cut and dried as you think it is.

      It IS fashionable to criticize the US on Slashdot. Anyone who says anything else has to open their fucking eyes.

    23. Re:News for nerds? by jschrod · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I have mod points, and instead of modding you flamebait (which your post is, IMNSHO), I react.

      You are wrong that only groupthink posts get +5 moderation. Wait half a day, and read at +5. Then you'll see a balanced reaction at most articles, with many critical posts modded up. Bad mods most often happen at the start of a comment phase; in the end most get quite OK.

      --

      Joachim

      People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]

    24. Re:News for nerds? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "I don't understand this response at all. The original article examined a process, saw something that was suboptimal, and suggested an improvement. And that's considered criticizing the US?"

      Uh, did you even READ the bit that Slashdot posted?

      "So why was it ignored? Graphic designer Greg Storey thinks part of the reason is poor design."

      The implication that the gov't ignored a dangerous warning because the formatting of the doc wasn't pretty doesn't sound like a Dilbertian caricature of the US gov't?

      Maybe you should spend some time meta-moderating. It'll give you a clearer view of what I'm talking about, here. Lots of mod-points are spent every day supporting popular opinion, and typically that opinion involves criticizing the US. But, gee, by some strange coincidence, despite the random sampling of posts you see with meta-moderation, criticisms of other gov'ts just don't make their way in there. (Funny, I'd expect Tony Blair to be more popular, there.)

      I hate Bush, mod me up.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    25. Re:News for nerds? by SlothB77 · · Score: 0

      I scroll down and I am reading entries that say that Bush wanted this country to be attacked and wanted Americans to die. The President of the United States coordinating an attack against us, perhaps in meetings with the Saudis!

      These are valid arguments?

      Do you expect people to just sit here and listen to this rubbish and not defend it?

      The views espoused here IS the Michael Moore wing. That's all it is. Michael Moore, maybe a little Jane Fonda. If you don't want to be called a Michael Moore liberal, stop reciting his movie's talking points.

    26. Re:News for nerds? by rob_squared · · Score: 0

      Slashdot is not a democracy. In fact you'll be hard pressed to find one anywhere on earth.

      --
      I don't get it.
    27. Re:News for nerds? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Oh dear. As I read this you're at +5. Guess you're screwed, then. ;-)

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    28. Re:News for nerds? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      I wrote you that there was going to be an attack. Everthing was very clear, and the letters were all three microns high. Why didn't you do anything?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    29. Re:News for nerds? by IvyMike · · Score: 1

      "So why was it ignored? Graphic designer Greg Storey thinks part of the reason is poor design."

      The implication that the gov't ignored a dangerous warning because the formatting of the doc wasn't pretty doesn't sound like a Dilbertian caricature of the US gov't?


      It's criticizing the format used for a single document, not making a caricature of the entire government! How would you have summarized the article? Do you think the original memo shows good design? Think to how much information and email you get thrown at you. Now imagine how many orders of magnitude more the president must get. Do you think you're both served well by the same format?

      Maybe you should spend some time meta-moderating. It'll give you a clearer view of what I'm talking about, here. Lots of mod-points are spent every day supporting popular opinion, and typically that opinion involves criticizing the US.

      I hate Bush, mod me up.


      Maybe, maybe not, but this post really wasn't an example deep anti-US sentiment.

      What I also see a lot of during meta-modertion are people who get cricitized for not being patriotically correct. If I can't suggest a new document format without being accused of being anti-US, well, that's just scary.

    30. Re:News for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Considering that a large portion, and probably the majority of Slashdotters are American, I wouldn't say it's a case of being fashionable.
      I disagree. Slashdot is very left-wing. If most readers were typically American then it would be center-right, as currently the U.S. is slightly more conservative than liberal. But the fact that it's so left-wing now leads me to guess (based on reading lots of politically-charged posts) that the break-up is:
      • 15% mainstream right-wing (libertarians, traditionalists, conservatives, etc.), mostly from the U.S., Australia, some from the UK/Canada
      • 35% U.S. liberal, including spoiled teenagers who don't believe in intellectual property rights when it comes to music and movies, anti-social geek socialists who think an above average IQ and consitently winning at "Age of Empires" entitles them to run a society, and an assortment of hippies and Starbucks-trashing weekend anarchists
      • 15% Canadian, meaning mostly "progressive"-fad chasers who want to turn their country into Berkeley
      • 15% continental European, mainly from the people's republics of Scandinavia and Germany
      • 10% Guaridan-reading anti-Semites from the UK, Ireland, New Zealand, etc.
      • 5% from Che-loving Latin America
      • 2% from France who, right-wing or left, agree America's greatest crime will always be to have made Fra-ance! look puny for the last 100 years
      • 1-3% from other Third World countries, including many anti-social socialists Nehruite technocrats from India
    31. Re:News for nerds? by Waverleo · · Score: 1
      Discussion boards are excellent places for criticism, and when the establishment happens to be ideologically far in a particular direction, the flavour of criticism will most likely come from the opposite end of the spectrum (rather than further to the Right). The role of the media, and venues such as this one is to question and criticise, to review and analyse. FOX News notwithstanding, the media's role (in a free democracy) is not to flag wave and be pro-establishment, it is not to be a government apologist, and it is not to spend most of its time critiquing the critics.

      If the administration were Democrat, criticism would, and should, abound just as much. Only in this case, for some reason it wouldn't be subverted by others' calling it 'unAmerican'.

    32. Re:News for nerds? by barkingcorndog · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I'm not sure your point is valid at all. At the moment, your post which is certainly speaking out agains the groupthink has not been silenced. In fact, it's sitting pretty at +5 Insightful. So, what was your point again?

      --
      "I know together we'll make the possible totally impossible" - Homme
    33. Re:News for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There are plenty of examples in engineering of bad UI design or information presentation costing lives; this is yet another. If you can't name at least 3 examples, then I truly hope you don't call yourself an engineer, computer programmer, or anything related.


      And yet you fail to name even one....

    34. Re:News for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Much of the action of the US government is driven by fear, greed, and emotion, which runs counter to the typical geek way of analysing and responding to a situation.


      Great, now I've got coke all over my desk.


      Clearly you don't read the same Slashdot that I do...

    35. Re:News for nerds? by evanbd · · Score: 1
      All right...

      Therac-25
      Challenger
      Chernobyl

      Each is fairly different; however, in each case, the disaster was a result of operator error that could have been avoided through better design or better information presentation.

  13. Stupidity is USA fault! by Karaman · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    If Americans, particularly their political leaders were less stupid, there would be fewer losses at WTC, because it would still be there now! I mourn for this country's people every time I watch a porn movie and I see in the first titles: the Flag and the caption: 09/11/2001 ..we will always remember... But you cant expect from policemen to be intelligent, could you :)

    --
    sex is better than war!
    1. Re:Stupidity is USA fault! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      While it does seem there was plenty of incompetance to spread around, along with an alergy to following up on any work Clinton had in progress, you can't really know if the WTC attack would have happened or not if Clinton was in office, although I'd tend to at least guess that the odds would have been reduced 10% or so.

      I do fault the Bush administration for incompetence and corruption, but I do it more so since 9/11 than before it. There is a large section of the population that is easily led and manipulated. You tell a lie often enough and with a convincing enough voice and lots of people will believe it, either because they want it to be true or fear it will be. People are much faster to believe the worst about about another than the best.

      If you watch FOX news you have pretend balance, with such an obvious slant anyone could recognize it, yet it is effective. CNN is better, but not by a great deal. This complete and utter idiocy where you throw two sides out that do nothing but attacks and call that news is damaging and certainly not helping to inform the populace. Yes hearing both sides of the argument can be informative, but when they just do cheap attacks and arguments with the thinnest or no logic whatsover it is quite sad.

      Frankly I wish they would replay Jon Stewarts Crossfire program a few more times, since for once someone told the truth.

      I really gotta stop ranting about American politics. I'm stuck here, and will be for awhile. I just pray that some people with some sense get into power and, more importantly, the populace gets more informed somehow. Democracy is no better, and sometimes perhaps worse than other forms of goverment if those that chose the leaders are easy to manipulate.

    2. Re:Stupidity is USA fault! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can't really know if the WTC attack would have happened or not if Clinton was in office, although I'd tend to at least guess that the odds would have been reduced 10% or so.

      A WTC attack did happen when Clinton was in office:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_Bo mbing

      Of course, it wouldn't be right to blame Clinton for it. It was his first year in office. Putting in place the policies to prevent terrorist attacks is the work of years.

    3. Re:Stupidity is USA fault! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you, and many others, think the US political leaders are stupid? As far as I can see, they make truckloads of money, and get more and more power. It's what they do. It's what they are good at.
      Most of the world knows what US corporations and political leaders will do for money. I have no idea why Joe Blow average US citizen thinks his life is more valueable to his leaders than the life of some random worker in the rest of the world.

  14. Threat Matrix?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All a threat matrix does is encourage people to create their own filtering systems.

    "Oh, that Bin Laden warning? Nah, I didn't take it seriously... I only read Threat Matrix 15 and above" ...which instantly puts all of the blame onto the poor sap who allocated it as a 9!

    Better that these kind of documents all look the same, and *force* people to read every word. Those that don't read every word aren't doing their jobs properly.

    1. Re:Threat Matrix?? by fvbommel · · Score: 1

      I only read Threat Matrix 15 and above

      RTFA: The red box indicates the threat level on a scale of 1-10

      Of course, we're talking about Bush here, so that might not stop him from saying that...

    2. Re:Threat Matrix?? by el+cisne · · Score: 1

      "RTFA: The red box indicates the threat level on a scale of 1-10"

      But sometimes we need to be just a little more threatening, so this one goes to 11.

    3. Re:Threat Matrix?? by coopex · · Score: 0

      Why don't you just make the most threatening level 10?

      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
  15. Something I've wondered by metlin · · Score: 0, Troll

    I've always wondered why the classified and confidential stuff is always in black and white - never in any other color.

    Any reason?

    1. Re:Something I've wondered by green+pizza · · Score: 1

      I've always wondered why the classified and confidential stuff is always in black and white - never in any other color.

      The department that declassifies material is probably still using their first gerataion PaperPort and Mac Plus.

    2. Re:Something I've wondered by vijayiyer · · Score: 1

      Classified and confidential stuff isn't always in black and white. How many datapoints are you basing your conclusion on?

    3. Re:Something I've wondered by DavidNWelton · · Score: 1

      I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.

    4. Re:Something I've wondered by nacturation · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've always wondered why the classified and confidential stuff is always in black and white - never in any other color.

      Because most photocopiers don't support color? When a document is redacted, the original is first photocopied, then a big black felt is used to redact the sensitive information, then it gets photocopied again before being distributed so that you can't see the original text under the ink. That's also why the declassified documents look so terrible -- the document that results after being degraded by multiple photocopies is the one which gets printed.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    5. Re:Something I've wondered by teflonhook007 · · Score: 1

      so the spy cameras can photograph them properly

    6. Re:Something I've wondered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You failed to declassify that second link.

    7. Re:Something I've wondered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many memos do you write that are in color?

  16. Hey, by bkubi · · Score: 0

    I thought that latin is only used for letters by the catholic pope nowadays.
    Actually, I don't believe that Bush would be able to read this letter by himself.

  17. Latin Jibberish Generator... probably from iWork.. by green+pizza · · Score: 2, Informative

    Several desktop pubishing applications can generate "latin jibberish" to fill in text areas. It looks silly at first, but it helpful for layout. "Pages", part of Apple's iWork package, is one app that I know does this.

  18. Signal to noise. by Inominate · · Score: 3, Insightful

    SOMEWHERE in the bureaucracy is a document covering every imaginable possibility. That an event was predicted by a document in no way means anyone had any idea it was coming.

    Whenever anything happens, you can always find SOMEONE who predicted it, that doesn't mean they knew it was coming. It just makes it easy to pick the signal out of the noise when you know what you're looking for.

    1. Re:Signal to noise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus, what's wrong with you guys? Obviously something has gone terribly wrong, but instead off trying to find out what went wrong exactly, all you seem to be interested in is find lame excuses so that the current administration can not be blamed. And you probably call yourselves patriots, don't you...

      So, let's look at your lame excuse.
      It wasn't just some document written by some unimportant guy deeply hidden somewhere in the Washington bearaucracy.

      It was a document presented by the highest counter terrorism official of the US that warned that Bin-Laden was the biggest threat facing the US at the time and that a strike was imminent.

      So much for your lame excuses.

    2. Re:Signal to noise. by pascalpp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Whatever, dude. This was not some random document that someone dug out of the garbage in order to prove some lefty point. This document was a Presidential Daily Briefing given to Bush a month prior to the attacks. Those briefings are very high profile and (one would hope) well-researched. The implications at best are that the administration committed a major oversight in not looking further into the possibilities of such an attack. At worst, there is an implication of willful ignorance or perhaps even complicity. Even I find this unlikely, but the possibility has yet to be fully investigated, and perhaps it never will.

      Regarding TFA, the design of the document is almost certainly a minor factor among the possible reasons it was ignored. (And yes, I've read my share of Tufte.) However, knowing this president, it might have held his attention longer if it had pretty illustrations of planes flying into buildings on the cover. And perhaps it should have been titled "My Pet Terrorist."

    3. Re:Signal to noise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This wasn't some document awash in a sea of documents. It was a Presidential Daily Briefing. It was about 4 times as long as a normal Presidential Daily Briefing. It was read to President George Bush on the day of its writing. It contains direct warning of the imminent threat of terrorist attacks directed by Bin Laden involving flying jet airplanes into large building on American soil. You can yell all you want about how SOMEONE SOMEWHERE knows what is up. We had a President more than a month before 9/11 being told point blank what is up and he ignored it. There's no excuse for that.

    4. Re:Signal to noise. by Intocabile · · Score: 1

      Don't forget ^^^THIS SIDE UP^^^.

      Lameness my ass.

    5. Re:Signal to noise. by peachpuff · · Score: 1

      When I read your post, I said "What?" out loud at the end of every single sentence. Even a crazy place like the government can't have white-noise executive briefings. I can't believe that the President of the United States would get a secret security briefing containing predictions that no one expected to come true.

      Besides, the document seems to contain adequate supporting facts. Anyone who read it should have taken it seriously, even if the author did not.

      --
      -- . . ramblin' . . .
    6. Re:Signal to noise. by jacobito · · Score: 1
      SOMEWHERE in the bureaucracy is a document covering every imaginable possibility.

      You're not a reader of Borges or Kafka by any chance, are you?

    7. Re:Signal to noise. by colonslash · · Score: 1

      Maybe the proof of WMD documents should have used crappier design.

    8. Re:Signal to noise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah - that would have saved over 100,000 Iraqi lives. They should use different levels of design depending on how important the information will prove to be.

  19. Why was it ignored? by blueberry(4*atan(1)) · · Score: 4, Interesting

    MIHOP/LIHOP. They (neocons) made/wanted it to happen. The Bush regime needed a "catalysing event" to wage war and institute repressive measures in the name of "fighting terrorism". (think Pearl Harbor) It didn't take long for them to then conquer Iraq and establish their 14 military bases at a cost of $300 Billion. Now they are beating the war drums against Iran and threatening the judiciary. Why was it ignored indeed.

    1. Re:Why was it ignored? by planetoid · · Score: 0

      I think Bush was in his overalls playing tennis with a ball of rolled-up boogers and a fly swatter on his wooden porch with a sleeping hound dog by his side that day. Yee-haw!

      --
      Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
    2. Re:Why was it ignored? by daveinthesky · · Score: 1

      Too true.

      More info for the uninformed.

    3. Re:Why was it ignored? by zulux · · Score: 3, Funny


      As a Neocon overload myself, I can attest to truth of your statement.

      In our defense, the whole "Kill 3,000 Americans and Take over the World" plot came out of a focus group held in Delwa, North Dakota.

      If you've ever been to Delwa, you'd be thankful that the number of deaths was under 3,000 - some of those people are even too crazy for my taste.

      Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some babies to kill and some trees to cut down. I think I'll make the clowns sad again as well - you know, you got to put in extra effort if you want to get anywhere.

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    4. Re:Why was it ignored? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but this is a logical fallacy.
      Just because the Bush administration later used the event to further its agenda, which they clearly did, doesn't mean they were in any way actively involved or ignoring the threat on purpose.
      All the evidence I am aware of points to incopetence throughout the administration and the intelligence community, not some evil plan.

    5. Re:Why was it ignored? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would use the phrase 'incompetence throughout the administration*s*'.
      This happened after eight months in office... the time to head it off wasn't in August of 2001. By there, it was pretty much too late, except for those with clairvoyance.
      Remember.. unless there's a specific, credible threat, all they can do is change policy gradually.

    6. Re:Why was it ignored? by pavera · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ok, so the president, his top aides, the military, the intelligence services, they all were complicit?

      For the neocons to "make" it happen, the president would have to have such a huge consolidation of power, across so many branches of the armed services, legislature, and his own office that it is laughable to even suggest it. If "the neocons" were actively participating in the murder of 3000+ americans, well, lets just say we'd have heard about it by now.

      The democrats certainly would have ben able to find a smoking gun in the 4 years since then. No conspiracy that large could be kept secret. People like you are the reason the country re-elected Bush.

      I am a republican but, no Bush apologist. I would have liked to have seen a decent democratic run last year. Unfortunately all I got from you guys was "Bush is the devil, he bought bin Laden the plane tickets!" insane, stupid, poorly reasoned arguments about how Iraq would be better off if we hadn't gone (they wouldn't sometimes sacrifice is required to improve something you Hollywood pussy Dems always seem to forget), about how the country is worse off because of Bush (I don't know about you but my salary is up 130% over the last 5 years, I own a house at 5.5%, I have health insurance which I didn't during the Clinton years, and I've been able to get completely out of debt except for my house.. so to me I think Bush has done a good job on the home front.).

      Anyway, I would have voted for Edwards if you guys had put him up instead of that cold fish Kerry. Edwards was a hard working, smart, thoughtful, well reasoned person who was a great example of achieving the american dream. Unfortunately you guys decided the spoiled, aristocrat who's never had to work a day in his life would be a better representation of your values. And now you bitch about it.... Idiots you picked him

    7. Re:Why was it ignored? by Boronx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's always worth asking who benefits.

      In any case, it's interesting that Prince Abdullah, leader of Saudi Arabia, home of most of the hijackers who were at least partly assisted by Saudi agents, came to Crawford Texas less than six months after the attack. Bush proceeded to kiss his butt.

      One of G.W.Bush's closests advisors is Prince Bandar "Bush" (so called by the Bush clan), who is ambassador to the US from Saudi Arabia. He worked closely with Bush in determining the country's response to 9/11, was one of the first people to revue the Iraq war plans, and smoked a cigar with Bush on the White House balcony at the beginning of the war in Afghanistan.

      All you really need to know is that Bush/Cheney fought tooth and nail to prevent investigations into 9/11. Why the American people didn't run them out on a rail for that alone, I will never understand.

      My question is this: Some rich, powerful members of the Saud and bin Laden family, some Saudi agents, and some Pakistani agents must have had wind of the attack, and yet they feared the wrath of America so little that they never tried to stop it or tip off American intelligence. Why is that?

    8. Re:Why was it ignored? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The Bush regime needed a "catalysing event" to wage war and institute repressive measures in the name of "fighting terrorism". (think Pearl Harbor)

      Yes, World War II was also a grand conspiracy. Roosevelt wanted Pearl Harbor to be attacked so he would have an excuse to lock up Japanese-Americans for several years.

    9. Re:Why was it ignored? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's always worth asking who benefits."

      Yes, it is. But from the simple fact that someone used something to his advantage, it doesn't follow that he is responsible for it in the first place. So untill someone finally posts something resembling evidence that the administration was not merely incompetent, but actively ignoring the issue, I can't take the claims of the original poster very seriously.

      About the Saudi connection, you are totally right that the policy of the Bush administration, but also of previouse administrations, towards Saudi Arabia is disturbing, to say the least.
      However, all this might amount to to a corrupt, immoral, hypocite administration, but it still falls way short of showing any active ingoring.

      Further, I think it's very easy to explain, why the administration did everything to prevent the 9/11 investigation, it simply was totally embarassing to them. First, because the fscked up big time and second because things like their very good connection to the shady Saudi regime was sure to surface. So no conspiracy theory is needed to explain their behavior.

      Finally, why do you assume that the Saudi and Pakistani intelligence community had to have insight knowledge about exactly what would happen? From all I read the policy of the Saudis was merely to tollerate Bin Laden and what he did, that is to look away on purpose. You also seem to forget, that Pakistan and the US weren't exactly friendly at the time.

    10. Re:Why was it ignored? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Got no mod points, but just wanted to say that I agree completely.

    11. Re:Why was it ignored? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Just the fact the US was holding FIVE military exercises on the morning of 9/11, when the planes hit the WTC, and the fact that some of these EXERCISES involved terrorists crashing planes into buildings, should be enough to prove to you that, at the least, the US government had prior knowledge:
      http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2004 /080904wargamescover.htm

      Also the US government has at least made plans, in the past, to attack its own forces, i.e. blow up a plane, bomb a ship, etc., in order to justify going to war. This has been revealed in declassified government documents. The plan was called "Operation Northwoods":
      http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/

      Oh, and here is a short documentary "movie" on the 9/11 Pentagon hit: http://www.elchulo.net/files/pentagon.swf

    12. Re:Why was it ignored? by Boronx · · Score: 1

      However, all this might amount to to a corrupt, immoral, hypocite administration, but it still falls way short of showing any active ingoring.


      I agree.

      Further, I think it's very easy to explain, why the administration did everything to prevent the 9/11 investigation, it simply was totally embarassing to them.

      I agree here too. However, even assuming that the failures before the attacks were merely an embarrasment and not criminal, the subsequent cover up is every bit as malignant as if they had ignored bin Laden purposefully before 9/11. Any hinderance of 9/11 investigations hurts our ability to foil future attacks.

      Finally, why do you assume that the Saudi and Pakistani intelligence community had to have insight knowledge about exactly what would happen?

      The pakistani intelligence community has always been tight with Al Qaeda. The Taliban, Al Qaeda's host government, was a creation of Pakistani intelligence. There is evidence that Saudi agents helped some of the hijackers while they lived in the US. On who's orders? Who knows. Some of the hijackers were assisted financially through fake Saudi charities, which are only the means by which spoiled rich idealistic saudi princes can feel like they're sticking it to the man by laundering money to terrorists. One of these, BTW, was the wife of Prince Bandar, who as I mentioned is a close friend of the President.

      From all I read the policy of the Saudis was merely to tollerate Bin Laden and what he did, that is to look away on purpose.

      I believe there is a great deal of sympathy for bin Laden among the snot-nosed idealists among the rich saudis.

      You also seem to forget, that Pakistan and the US weren't exactly friendly at the time.

      Funny how quickly that changed, isn't it? Now Al Qaeda and probably bin Laden have taken refuge in Pakistan, Pakistani troops shoot at US troops that track them across the border, they sell nuclear technology to Libya and God knows who else, and they are *still* our friends.

    13. Re:Why was it ignored? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why can't we get the names of who shorted loads of airline stock just beforehand...

    14. Re:Why was it ignored? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post was most excellent, sir, but I still don't understand what it has to do with pancakes.

    15. Re:Why was it ignored? by lawpoop · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "how the country is worse off because of Bush (I don't know about you but my salary is up 130% over the last 5 years, I own a house at 5.5%, I have health insurance which I didn't during the Clinton years, and I've been able to get completely out of debt except for my house.. so to me I think Bush has done a good job on the home front.).

      This is classis psychopathic libertarian reasoning. A psychopath is someone who only cares about themselves, and has no concern for anyone else. So things look great for you? Wonderful! who cares about anyone else?

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    16. Re:Why was it ignored? by m00nun1t · · Score: 1

      Wow! Researched based on watching one movie from a highly biased source. GReat!

    17. Re:Why was it ignored? by Boronx · · Score: 1

      I lived through this stuff and you probably did too. Much of it I saw live on TV or next day in the paper. Open your eyes.

      (The bit about the Saudi agents was leaked from the redacted parts of the Senate investigation and didn't come out till last year, but I learned about it contemporanious with the leak, and you could have too if you'd been paying attention.)

      Bush's ass kissing of Prince Abdullah is the first time I've ever wanted to throw anything through my TV set and marked the complete end for me of the "Let's all be united against this new threat" notion that had begun begun on 9/11 and had started to die not soon after as Bush swung into cover up mode.

    18. Re:Why was it ignored? by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Why the American people didn't run them out on a rail for that alone, I will never understand.

      Because we always just let our elected representatives do that sort of thing for us... and there's a Republican majority in Congress.

      My question is this: Some rich, powerful members of the Saud and bin Laden family, some Saudi agents, and some Pakistani agents must have had wind of the attack, and yet they feared the wrath of America so little that they never tried to stop it or tip off American intelligence. Why is that?

      Their judgment was correct, wasn't it? They're not facing any consequences from us.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    19. Re:Why was it ignored? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if Clinton were in charge on 9-11 you wouldn't say SHIT!
      Shut the Fuck up about all the "Bush planned it bullshit"

      Bin Laden blew up all sorts of shit while Clinton was in charge and he didn't do SHIT to get him. ( a few cruise missles doesn't cut it)

      The taliban has been routed out of afghanistan..and the afghanis LOVE US! Sadam Hussein is in prison, his sons are dead, Iraqis have more freedom now than they've had in the last 40 years.

      Palestinians have voted for a new leader, Afghanis have voted for a new president, Iraqis have voted for a new parlaiment, syrian troops are withdrawing from lebanon, iran is on the verge of political revolution.

      9-11 and our going to war as response has done a LOT of GOOD for the mideast!

    20. Re:Why was it ignored? by TummyX · · Score: 1


      Just the fact the US was holding FIVE military exercises on the morning of 9/11, when the planes hit the WTC, and the fact that some of these EXERCISES involved terrorists crashing planes into buildings, should be enough to prove to you that, at the least, the US government had prior knowledge:


      WTF? What kind of logic is that? It shows that they knew of the possibility but in know what proves that they knew it would happen. If you knew it would happen and were going to let it happen why the hell would you have military excercises?


      Oh, and here is a short documentary "movie" on the 9/11 Pentagon hit: http://www.elchulo.net/files/pentagon.swf


      That crockumentary has been debunked so many times.

      PS. I think you forgot the moon landing is fake links.

    21. Re:Why was it ignored? by coopex · · Score: 0

      You lived though it did you? So I assume you're either in the military or worked in the twin towers? C'mom, just admit you're a rabit Bush hater that'll bitch about anything.

      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    22. Re:Why was it ignored? by coopex · · Score: 0

      psychopath ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sk-pth) n. A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse. I see no evidnce of antisocialness, or agressive, perverted, criminal behavior or amoralness, there's no evidence of no empathy, he has nothing to be remorseful about ( unless being well off counts ). He said he sees no evidence of the country being worse off, and gave an example of himself. You, on the other hand, try to sound like you some know it all ( "classical ..." ), and make ad homiem attacks on his character.

      Jesus christ, can't we have some civilized discussions here involving politics.

      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    23. Re:Why was it ignored? by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1
      What kind of logic is that? It shows that they knew of the possibility but in know what proves that they knew it would happen. If you knew it would happen and were going to let it happen why the hell would you have military excercises?

      The parent is implying that the exercises were decoys to camouflage the true attackers and to drain resources from the real response.

      Frankly, I have trouble believing that our government officials are so corrupt and morally bankrupt as to have supported or encouraged the events of 9/11. And yet, there are so many little inconsistencies and coincidences, that I have a powerful urge to run to my bedroom and hide under my covers.

      Old mexican saying: El dinero es cabrón.

    24. Re:Why was it ignored? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what was your favorite part of Bush's ass kissing of Prince Abdullah?

  20. Too much text by nizo · · Score: 4, Funny

    Remember these are busy politicians. A simple one page graphic of a plane exploding, people on fire, politicians getting blamed, etc. might have better conveyed the message, since apparently the headline "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US" didn't instill the proper amount of concern.

    1. Re:Too much text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems crazy now.. but at the time, such warnings really meritted very little concern.. I mean.. what was he gonna do? Try to bomb the WTC again?
      The first attack was much less than a stellar success for fascist islam.
      No... there were a great many reasons for not doing anything at the time... they certainly don't seem like good reasons now.. but you can't judge those actions with this kind of hindsight.

    2. Re:Too much text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      A simple one page graphic of a plane exploding, people on fire, politicians getting blamed, him getting re-elected...

      Stir up conflict and you create a perfect platform for political bandwagoning and patriotic mobs -- no conflict and focus would have been on internal policies...

  21. Re:Latin Jibberish Generator... probably from iWor by vijayiyer · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's called "Lorem Ipsum" and is purposely gibberish. It's used by designers so that one focuses on layout rather than content.

  22. He was 100% right. by blueberry(4*atan(1)) · · Score: 1, Insightful

    That's why they had to attack him personally, because they couldn't factually disagree with anything in F911. He had Bush pegged.

    1. Re:He was 100% right. by Dr.+GeneMachine · · Score: 1

      dude, you know you would be modded -1e5 troll for this, didn't you? we have to get them in a more subtle manner, remember that!

      --
      This comment does not exist.
    2. Re:He was 100% right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      come on blueberry, time to back to the home now. if you're good, we'll have some pancakes!!

  23. Har by pyth · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The president's response at the time, to either style of report: "Oh, it's just some crazy named Bin Laden. As if terrorists could attack the USA."

    Have you already forgotten the mindset of the US government before the tower-plane collisions?

    1. Re:Har by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Is this the same government that convicted the first WTC bombers, executed McVey and convicted Nichols, and foiled the Millenium bombing?

    2. Re:Har by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Have you already forgotten the mindset of the US government before the tower-plane collisions?

      No, the question you are actually asking is: "Have you already forgotten the Bush Administrations far-fetched excuse for why they didn't do anything?"
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  24. This Isn't What the President Read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [anon for various reasons]

    Anyone with any interaction with US intelligence knows that their #1 product is...powerpoint presentations. Seriously.

    Memos like these are designed to accompany the powerpoint breifings. Think of it as a handout.

    The President, nor any senior staff member, is merely handed documents like these to read. They usually receive the briefing as a slide presentation, using powerpoint, usualy presented by a senior analyst or intelligence officer. This officer is familiar with the information enough to answer most questions, and is tasked with getting answers to the ones he can't answer off the cuff.

    Odds are the slides glossed over these facts, as in the memo they appear as background (6+ year old) information anyway.

    Iraq wasn't an "intelligence failure", IMHO.
    Tenet saw it coming and bailed before they made him the bag man.

    1. Re:This Isn't What the President Read by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      So Tufte was right. The slides probably had a graph like the one he has for the Gettysburg Address, with "Number of Towers to be Destroyed by Airplanes" on one dimension and "2" on the other.

  25. It didn't come after. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It came before. Foresight of the actor and his method of action is pretty significant. Were it not ignored.

  26. I know why it was ignored. by GeorgeMcBay · · Score: 5, Funny

    Presidential memos don't support the BLINK tag.

    1. Re:I know why it was ignored. by terpri · · Score: 0

      You're getting tags mixed up. It's the MARQUEE tag that isn't supported in presidential memos. However, the same functionality is available as "Freedom BLINK."

  27. just because by insomnyuk · · Score: 1

    Just because it looks like a blog doesn't mean anybody will give it more attention. I ignore millions of blogs everyday, with that kitschy, cliched 'minimalist' design. Whatever. Responsible government officials should be paying attention to anything like that when it crosses their desk. This is a corporate culture problem, not a usability problem. This guy is treating a symptom but it won't remove the cause.

    1. Re:just because by avalys · · Score: 1

      I'm curious as to what modern web/document design style you don't consider "kitschy", if you have a problem with that site.

      Got an example of a web page with a design you like? I'm genuinely curious, not just trying to bother you.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    2. Re:just because by insomnyuk · · Score: 1

      Interesting question, I should have thought of some examples before my little ramble.

      This looks kitschy: http://www.amnestyusa.org/ Sad, too, considering who the site is about.

      On the other hand, I think this is good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page because it organizes a large amount of information and is pretty easy to use.

      Anyhow, looking back, maybe that guys design isn't that bad, I just don't think official communications should look like a blog. Personal issue, I suppose.

  28. Hijacking to force release prisoner release? by CactusCritter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have read that government officials thought that Osama wanted to force prisoner release by commercial aircraft highjacking; perhaps of the mullah behind the original World Trade Center bombing.

    On the other hand, I was aware of a Norad exercise that was to address using hijacked planes as missiles. Right after the release of the 9/11 Commision Report, some bright, informed soul at the Arizona Republic ran a brief story about the planned Norad exercise which it turned out had never actually been carried out.

    If the Norad exercise had been carried out, the lines of authority that were completely lacking 9/11/2001 and caused so much confusion and wasted time would have been documented and perhaps thousands of lives could have been saved.

    I figure that if I, a retired citsen could have been aware of the concept of using high-jacked commercial aircraft as missiles, there was no excuse for high government officials to have been unaware of the concept.

    Lots of high-ranking heads spent too much time in posterior dark places.

    1. Re:Hijacking to force release prisoner release? by terpri · · Score: 0

      How do we know that the "Norad exercise" was not in fact 9/11? Islamofascist hijackers? More like shapeshifting reptilian bureaucrats. Excuse me for a moment while I open my tin-foil umbrella...

    2. Re:Hijacking to force release prisoner release? by CactusCritter · · Score: 1

      I neglected to state, in my original posting, that the Arizona Republic article I cited indicated that the planned Norad operation was originally scheduled for 1998.

  29. Re:Latin Jibberish Generator... probably from iWor by vijayiyer · · Score: 3, Informative

    Further information is available at http://www.lipsum.com/

  30. Hardware??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can anyone tell me why this in the Hardware section?

  31. The president has a hard enough time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    with English.

  32. from the this-is-not-a-political-post dept. by GeorgeMcBay · · Score: 2, Funny

    Nor is it a Hardware post, despite showing up in that section. But that's ok, because the person who posted it isn't really an editor, either.

    Welcome to Slashdot!

  33. Latin is more legible?? by musselm · · Score: 1

    One might note the more "legible" version is in Latin.

    Ironical if I do say so myself.

    1. Re:Latin is more legible?? by musselm · · Score: 1

      Faux-Latin at that.

    2. Re:Latin is more legible?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One might note the more "legible" version is in Latin.

      Ironical if I do say so myself.


      English is not the best language to communicate in. It's been cobbled together from three different ancestor languages. This leads to a lot of unnecessary grammar rules, irregularities, and duplication of vocabulary.

      It would be much better to communicate in a cleaner, better-designed language. Such as French, Esperanto, or even Classical Latin.

      For communicating critical information as in this memo, using a better language is much more likely to save lives than using a snazzy TPS cover sheet or whatever this guy is advocating.

  34. Re:how about a sock puppet show? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    an avid watcher of 2dtv in the uk are we? :D ( for those who dont know, its a satirical cartoon show, which regularly makes fun of bush with one of his generals conveying information to bush via a sock puppet called 'professor liebstrom' - and even then bush doesnt quite get it. )

  35. Re:Lorem Ipsum = danger? by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    It's an al Qaeda memo that was originally in Arabic. This was the transliterated version.

  36. Ignored? by flajann · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It was ignored because, well, they wanted it to happen. An excuse to deepy entrench the US in the Gulf region was needed.

  37. Can someone please explain... by Fjornir · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    ...what happened at the pentagon on 9/11? The photographic evidence seems to contradict the the official story... Look

    --
    I want a new world. I think this one is broken.
    1. Re:Can someone please explain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Actually, no, it doesn't.
      The photographic evidence contradicts the conspiracy, tin-foil hat story, but as always, people who try hard to believe in a conspiracy simply ignore all the evidence (photographic and otherwise) that doesn't fit their conspiracy theory.

      On a related note, the Bush administration would like to thank all the conspiracy nut jobs, as they do a great job in distracting from the real issue, which is, how could an adminstration fuck up so hard and how come that not one person has been held accountable for this gigantic fuck up?

    2. Re:Can someone please explain... by Fjornir · · Score: 1

      I'm not usually much of a tin-foil-hat wearer. The fact is that I do not know how to explain the lack of the debris field you'd associate with a plane hitting something. All the quotes I can't verify, innuendo, allegedly confiscated tapes, whatever aside there should be serious nastiness all over the lawn, right?

      --
      I want a new world. I think this one is broken.
    3. Re:Can someone please explain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. There isn't a lack of a debris field. That's exactly what I meant, all the photographic evidence of debris is simply ignored by those wanting to construct a conspiracy theory.

      2. An aircraft that was full off cerosine hit a solid (very solid) building. Don't you think it is reasonable to expect that there isn't much left of the aircraft afterwards?

      http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
      http ://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/13.jpg
      http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/pentagon_20 02 0316.html

    4. Re:Can someone please explain... by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      ...are you really that much of a moron, please tell me you're joking.

    5. Re:Can someone please explain... by hedge_death_shootout · · Score: 1

      Join me if you will on a thought experiment...
      Throw a brick (B) through a window (W) at 300MPH (V), note that the debris field (D) is on the far side of the window from the point of entry (X).
      This behaviour is explained by a complex conjunction of the laws of general relativity and quantum physics; not everyone gets this first time.

    6. Re:Can someone please explain... by crazney · · Score: 1

      ah conspiracy theories.

      read this.

      --
      stuff
    7. Re:Can someone please explain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, gotcha. So it was the new york footage of the plane hitting the tower with the big debris field spraying backwards that was faked. Thanks!

    8. Re:Can someone please explain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ah, quoting the holy snopes without looking at the pictures or thinking.

    9. Re:Can someone please explain... by hedge_death_shootout · · Score: 1

      My god... those... fiends... :-O

    10. Re:Can someone please explain... by hedge_death_shootout · · Score: 1

      It gets worse - if you look at photographs of the WTC impacts they've doctored the pictures to remove the backward flying debris!!
      Fiends I tell you!

    11. Re:Can someone please explain... by torpor · · Score: 1

      Its only a conspiracy theory until it is proven.

      Witholding evidence and obfuscating the scene works solely to prevent conspiracy theories from being proven.

      Fact is, the American people are being lied to by their government.

      Iron Mountain is still operating!

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    12. Re:Can someone please explain... by advocate_one · · Score: 2, Interesting

      erm... if that were all it was... just a conspiracy thoery... then it would be easy to dispell just by releasing the footage from all the surveillance cameras that was seized shortly after the event... after all, if there was nothing to it, then the camera footage would show a 757 hoot footing it on a collision course with the Pentagon... but then again, the conspiracy theorists would be claiming that the authorities had had plenty of time by now to doctor the footage...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    13. Re:Can someone please explain... by ChadN · · Score: 1

      That video is plain stupid. So, everyone who lost a family member on Flight 77 is lying? Those people who were on that flight, and called home when it was highjacked, were also lying? If flight 77 didn't hit the pentagon, where did it end up?

      This is by far the most interesting ramification of this particular conspiracy theory, if it were true, and that video ignores it completely. This particular conspiracy is an insult to reason.

      --
      "It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
    14. Re:Can someone please explain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have a criticism, please explain. Otherwise, name calling accomplishes nothing.

    15. Re:Can someone please explain... by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      If you don't know the difference between a plane going 30mph and 400mph then I really can't say much except insults. Can't help someone who lacks that much common sense.

    16. Re:Can someone please explain... by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      I forgot to add, also if you can't tell the difference between hitting a weak brick wall and a reinforced concrete wall, then there is again not much I can do.

    17. Re:Can someone please explain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have a criticism, please explain. Otherwise, name calling accomplishes nothing.

  38. Yeah, right...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    I believe it would help the President (Bush or otherwise) to quickly and more effectively assess the information given to him.

    Heh - maybe if it was Clinton, but Bush - he would still be left guessing.

    The rest of world doesn't think too much of Bush - even your closest neighbor Canada was shocked to see him suceed for a second term.

    America, what were you thinking?

    1. Re:Yeah, right...... by Boronx · · Score: 2, Funny

      We were thinking we were scared of the terrorists and gays, so we re-elected a corrupt closeted dimwit who didn't stop the terrorists the last time and decided the best way to stop the terrorists this time is to invade a non-terrorist country and turn them all in to terrorists.

      So to answer your question, I don't know what we were thinking.

  39. Re:Latin Jibberish Generator... probably from iWor by phauxfinnish · · Score: 1

    Also known as Greeking, ironically resembling Latin.

  40. Re:Lorem Ipsum = danger? by serutan · · Score: 5, Funny

    Fifteen minutes after this was posted, it was red-flagged by Carnivore. The President has approved $1 billion for a Lorem Ipsum task force. Monday morning Congress will pass the Lorem Ipsum Homeland Patriotism Act, which will impose a $100,000 fine and 10-year federal prison sentence for distribution or use of p2p software. Entertainment industry spokesmen hailed the new legislation as a step forward in the fight against terrorism.

  41. MOD HELL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the problem was that the focus was on the Genoa summit, they thought the hit was going to be there, so then after nothing happened there was a lull

    How is this guys post off topic?

    It specifically addresses the topic at hand with a more likely explaination than "oh, the formatting was uuugly"

    I suppose hell hath no fury like a 13 year old with mod points.

  42. lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    methinks this graphic designer puts waaaaay too much importance on his job. No offense Mr. Designer, but your little document is not going to change the world. If the people in charge of examining these documents cannot be bothered two read two fucking paragraphs then we have problems deeper than a cutsey layout.

  43. Typical designer megalomania by Angst+Badger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is the goddamn stupidest thing I have ever seen on Slashdot, and that's saying a lot. The idea that memo design led to the 9/11 attacks doesn't deserve a response, except for possibly making armpit noises. Designers are notorious for emphasizing form over content and overrating their minimal importance in the scheme of things, but for fuck's sake, it would be nice to believe -- all evidence to the contrary -- that the National Security Advisor and the President of the United States don't need spiffy document layouts to underscore the seriousness of international terrorist organizations flying jumbo jets into buildings.

    If it's clear, simple design that's at issue, why not just have a crude drawing of a 747 flying into the White House with a 24-point header reading LOOK OUT, GEORGE!

    Fuck. I'm going to have to wash my fucking brain after being around this much stupidity.

    --
    Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    1. Re:Typical designer megalomania by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree.

      This makes about as much sense as the millions of dollars spent on making the IRS 1040 and other tax forms in full color becuase some idiot designers thought it would somehow be more acceptable to tax payers.

    2. Re:Typical designer megalomania by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea that memo design led to the 9/11 attacks doesn't deserve a response, except for possibly making armpit noises.

      Yeah. It's just that we're putting new coversheets on all the TPS reports *before* they go out now. So if you could just remember to do that from now on, that'd be great.

    3. Re:Typical designer megalomania by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Oh, where is it suggested that the memo design led to the attacks? If you weren't such an overreactive fuckwit and stopped for half a second to actually RTFA, you would see that the proposed new memo design

      (1) uses color to draw the eye and indicate level of alert. COLOR! It's useful for getting attention (in sentient beings, anyway)

      (2) contains a numeric threat level which indicates quantitatively the degree of alarm the alert merits

      (3) is laid out much better, with a nice executive summary in the boxes at the top to enable presidents and other simple minds to quickly grasp the rudiments of the problem: who / what / when / where

      (4) uses COLOR in the text to draw the eye to salient features of the alert.

      I think you're so totally missing the point here that you wouldn't know it if it bit you on the ass. Are you seriously suggesting that the design of the original memo couldn't be improved one iota for enhanced efficiency and quicker comprehension? Keep looking for that brain of yours; it needs a good rinse!

    4. Re:Typical designer megalomania by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      better design does not force people to read the memos.. which is the problem at hand. people can just as easily shove this colored piece of paper into a folder in a filing cabinet as they can the other.

    5. Re:Typical designer megalomania by Feanturi · · Score: 1

      don't need spiffy document layouts to underscore the seriousness

      Yeah, but wasn't the last shuttle disaster supposed to have been Powerpoint's fault? I think the message may simply be that humans are careless with reading, and a poorly-formatted doument doesn't do anything to help that.

    6. Re:Typical designer megalomania by WillAdams · · Score: 1

      It's a bit overblown which is unfortunate and typical. There's a lot of good information elsewhere in this discussion though.

      That said, there are good documents noting the importance of design in making vital information available.

      Dr. Asaf Degani did some really interesting research for NASA which was made publicly available:

      http://ic.arc.nasa.gov/story.php?id=129&sec=3

      http://human-factors.arc.nasa.gov/IHpersonnel/pe op le/asaf_degani.html

      I've had them up for a while now on a web page listing free typography texts:

      http://members.aol.com/willadams/books-free-type .h tml

      William

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    7. Re:Typical designer megalomania by objekt · · Score: 1
      If it's clear, simple design that's at issue, why not just have a crude drawing of a 747 flying into the White House with a 24-point header reading LOOK OUT, GEORGE!


      Speaking as a graphic designer, I agree 100%.

      I was going to mock one up and post it, but I don't want the gummint investigating me for posting threats to the intraweb.

      --
      -- Boycott Shell
    8. Re:Typical designer megalomania by PrntlUnit27 · · Score: 1

      It seems you are already brainwashed. The memo did NOT say that the hijacked plane would be used as a weapon of destruction. It claimed that the plane would be used as a bartering tool to gain the release of the Blind Shaykh "and other US-held extremists."

    9. Re:Typical designer megalomania by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Better design HELPS. It is more likely to be read. The most important points catch the eye. It is more memorable, and therefor more likely to be acted on.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    10. Re:Typical designer megalomania by afabbro · · Score: 1
      Yeah, but wasn't the last shuttle disaster supposed to have been Powerpoint's fault?

      Sure, if you're Edward Tufte and you're trying to sell tickets to your seminars...

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    11. Re:Typical designer megalomania by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      No.

      It was supposed to be the fault of people who stopped doing engineering and started doing Powerpoint. And, having worked at NASA in 2002, that viewpoint is pretty supportable. Do you understand the difference between blaming it on the software and blaming it on people who stopped doing their real jobs (engineering - producing quality mathematically based analysis supporting scientific conclusions) and began doing bullshit paperwork (engineering by powerpoint - producing prtty slides that support the conclusion du jour)?

      Powerpoint wasn't to blame. A culture that required Powerpoint, but couldn't give a shit if you had a Mentor or ProE model proving your conclusion, is what was to blame.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
  44. Good points. We will never see them in action. by teamhasnoi · · Score: 1
    The people in charge don't want good design. They want plausible deniability.

    When we've got a government that doesn't cater to its own survival, and politicians that are held accountable for their actions and inactions, those in charge will desire good design, as that will make serving the public easier, more transparent, and more efficient.

    Until then, it will just call attention to the fact that the American people are getting screwed.

    Kind of like the snake eating it's own tail - there's just no room for anything but itself.

  45. red herring by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    Those things have nothing to do with stopping terrorism really. They knew who bin Laden was at that point and they knew the people he associated with. Several of the hijackers were on watch lists. They also knew where bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan were, and they knew quite a bit about his economic network. They knew where his family members and associates were in the U.S. No they should not have shut down all commercial businesses or put us under martial law. They should have used the intelligence they had about the people they knew were involved and made arrests, conducted interviews, shut down economic channels, put pressure on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for support in unraveling the network, found out what Mossad knew about people they were following in the U.S., used that intelligence to make more arrests, etc. Perhaps even ordered preemptive military strikes on bin Laden's training camps. Maybe they wouldn't have stopped 9-11 but they certainly could then have said they did everything they could to prevent it. This memo certainly should have triggered some action.

    1. Re:red herring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Preemptive stikes always go over so well. For Pete's sake -- people whined when we attacked Iraq. Imagine what would happen if we attacked a villige in Afganhastan before 9/11.

      The real preventative measure is to not allow hijackers to do as they wish with a plane -- we just never thought that they'd go smashing it into stuff. Even 235 cowards could stop 3 men with box cutters, we just didn't think it was necessary.

    2. Re:red herring by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      I know, and I would have joined the people opposing such strikes. Sometimes governments have to make tough calls, and even decisions that make people upset at them (like Clinton's attacks on bin Laden's training camps during his impeachment hearings, which I opposed at the time, and now support in hindsight). I'm not sure preemptive strikes would have been a good idea at the time but if they could have prevented 9/11? Anyway I named a lot of other options that should have been tried first. But I think military attacks on al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan needed to happen eventually.

  46. Lorium Ipsum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's Lorem Ipsum. A somewhat gibberish designers use to block in text when they don't have actual copy to insert yet or to just show off their design without any content.

    The standard chunk of Lorem Ipsum is cobbled from an ethics treaty by Cisero but other Lorem Ipsums have been made some aren't really any meaningful language.

    http://www.lipsum.com/

  47. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  48. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  49. Ignore motives, blame format by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This whole thing is a red herring. Read up on the PNAC and you'll learn that the Bush Administration is filled with people who have been DYING for a war of this kind you have with Iraq right now. Put aside your hatred of Michael Moore for a few minutes to figure out that OTHER PEOPLE have also shown links between the Bush's and the Bin Ladens and Saudi Royals, and you'll see why the Bush Administration wants to conveniently ignore those connections.

    It's all moot anyway. They wanted a war to legally embezzle $300 Billion from Americans in contracts, and wanted to fool everybody about it so they could get a second term in the white house. Mission Accomplished.

    It's now well-known that Hussein didn't have the weapons, was never a threat, and yet the war was started anyway. They've played it down pretending that they're learning about Hussein's lack of weapons at the same time we are, but that's not true. They knew it all along. Ask yourself about the sort of ethics somebody would need to have to do what they've done.

    Now ask yourself if those ethics are consistent with seeing a memo and disregarding it.

    Anybody who buys into the idea that the attacks were the result of poor design is a FOOL. The system may be imperfect, but it worked. The memo got to the top of the chain in time for Bush to do something about it. He did nothing.

    1. Re:Ignore motives, blame format by evilviper · · Score: 1
      They've played it down pretending that they're learning about Hussein's lack of weapons at the same time we are, but that's not true. They knew it all along.

      Umm, EVERYONE knew it all along. Everything they said as a rationalization for the war against Iraq was disproven days after they said it publicly. The day Bush issued his 48-hour warning to Saddam Hussein, several news networks followed that story with a run-down of every claim the Bush Administration made against Iraq, and went through why it was a lie.

      If you didn't know it was lies, you just weren't paying attention. Now that's a reasonable excuse for an average person, but definately not for the President, Congress, etc.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  50. What? by jfern · · Score: 1

    This memo was obviously written by someone trying to get Bush's attention to actually give a shit about going after terrorism. Instead Bush went on vacation that month (August 2001).

  51. Death + destruction = politics by Morgaine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If Americans, particularly their political leaders were less stupid, there would be fewer losses at WTC

    If political leaders everywhere including the wannabes were put in the fields to do hard labor, there would be no death and destruction in the world at all, except for natural causes.

    Sadly the plants would suffer.

    --
    "The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
    1. Re:Death + destruction = politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you, Chairman Mao. Perhaps we should kill all who wear glasses, as Pol Pot recommended.

    2. Re:Death + destruction = politics by evilviper · · Score: 1
      If political leaders everywhere including the wannabes were put in the fields to do hard labor, there would be no death and destruction in the world at all, except for natural causes.

      I believe you got moderated up because people can think of a few political leaders who should be removed. However, what you are really advocating by getting rid of them all, is complete anarchy, and I don't believe I need to explain why that doesn't work.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    3. Re:Death + destruction = politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, what you are really advocating by getting rid of them all, is complete anarchy

      That's like saying that removing the wallpaper would make the house fall down. :-)

      Society is pretty damn robust. The idea that politicians play a fundamental structural role is one that no doubt they themselves would love to promote, but it's pure fantasy.

      People self-organize automatically, bottom-up. It doesn't require top-down organization imposed by force of law at all, as community-level organizations have shown perfectly clearly in a million places around the world for decades, if not centuries.

  52. Re:how about a sock puppet show? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL! Well I had just made that up but it figures that it exists in reality. I'll have to try to find a clip of that...

  53. Legibility?? by hedge_death_shootout · · Score: 1

    What about standards? I'm amazed that in 2005 people are lauding this as good design when it's a bloody GIF file that doesnt, by definition, use CSS, and cannot be displayed usefully on a whole range of devices and browsers.

  54. It looks nice, but ... by houghi · · Score: 1

    what is most importand is the big red number 9 on the design. Now we know that this should ahve been a big red number 9. If somebody of Al Quada tells now that they are planning a huge attack on a harbour in the US, how serious would you take that? What are you going to do about it?

    If I were a terroris, I would cry wolf all the time and perhaps once every 10.000 cries I would strike.

    Remeber, a terrorist does only have to hit once and the defence can NEVER miss.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  55. One plain reason... by advocate_one · · Score: 1
    analysts will not put their heads on the block and categorically state that something IS going to happen... it's always hedged with extra bumph to allow them to state that there might be a possibility of an event at some nebulous date in the future, but they have no specifics as to what it actually is or exactly when...


    hard intelligence is extremely difficult to get hold of... and if you do have it, using it can give away the fact that you have it to the enemy, who will then conduct a witch-hunt to find the mole (and because of the nature of the hard intelligence it's not very difficult to find him/her) or else change their methods of operation to plug the hole.


    Churchill was pilloried after the war when it was discovered that they had hard intelligence that the Luftwaffe were going to attack Coventry on a specific night... He had to keep that knowledge hidden and couldn't act upon it because it would have tipped off the Germans to the fact that we were able to read their coded messages as if they were plain text... and they would have tightened up their code procedures and we would then have lost the means to read them.

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    1. Re:One plain reason... by merkac · · Score: 1
      The Churchill/Coventry myth is a nice parable on information warfare, but it is a load of old cobblers.

      See the full story

      Not really an unbiased source, but it explains the source of the myth and gives its version of the events.

    2. Re:One plain reason... by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Churchill wouldn't hesitate to use decrypted intelligence if it was plausable that he could have got the intelligence in some other manner.

      But even if US intelligence couldn't have drummed up a fake source to protect their real sources (they probably had a lot more time than Churchill did), I doubt very much that any of the sources were worth perserving at the cost of the 9/11 attacks. Plus, if preventive measures would have burned a source, then likely any post-attack investigation would as well.

  56. Design by rathehun · · Score: 2, Informative
    Now I don't expect everyone on /. to be stupid, but I don't expect them to be stupid in the extreme either.


    No where in TFA does it say that "Design could have prevented 9/11".


    Usability is something which can help. Think about hospital steps. If there is a ramp there, it helps people with wheelchairs get up there. Sure, ramps don't go around saving lives by throwing themselves over bombs or anything, but they do help by helping people use the facility.


    Now - look at the two different documents. What is lost by using the second one? All the information stays the same. What one does is to visually cue a person, providing easy ways to categorise the document without even reading it.


    You disagree?


    Try reading the same post as above, with a slight modification. Spacing doesn't save lives. Does it?


    NowIdon'texpecteveryoneon/.tobestupid,butIdon'te xp ectthemtobestupidintheextremeeither.Nowherein"Desi gncouldhaveprevented9/11".Usabilityissomethingwhic hcanhelp.Thinkabouthospitalsteps.Ifthereisarampthe re,ithelpspeoplewithwheelchairsgetupthere.Sure,ram psdon'tgoaroundsavinglivesbythrowingthemselvesover bombsoranything,buttheydohelpbyhelpingpeopleusethe facility.Now-lookatthetwodifferentdocuments.Whatis lostbyusingthesecondone?Alltheinformationstaysthes ame.Whatonedoesistovisuallycueaperson,providingeas ywaystocategorisethedocumentwithoutevenreadingit.

  57. Design is Not the Problem by Michael_Burton · · Score: 1

    The problem, very simply, is a president who doesn't read, and who listens only to his hand-picked yes-men.

    (Yes, I do understand that this is over-simplification. But it is nonetheless an important issue. It explains more than this individual problem. The never-ending effort in this administration to stop the buck anywhere but at the president's desk makes me tired.)

    --
    When all you have is an axe, everything looks like a grindstone.
  58. Shake your head in denial all you wish.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    ...but this does apply to hardware too. Just as graphic design can make something on the screen/in print easier to use, industrial design does the same for the physical object. It can make a great product. Don't believe me? One word...

    iPod.

    Remember the infamous comment? No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame. If you look at the raw specs, the iPod didn't offer much if anything over competitors, even with competitors to follow. Yet it still sold and is now virtually synonymous with MP3 player. Why do you suppose?

  59. Tufte, anyone? by shpoffo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It sounds like he's trying to one-up Edward Tufte, who had published a well-read report on the slide presentation that led to the Columbia Disaster. I guess we could use a few more such public analyses before people will begin to realize the reach of what falls under "Interface Design" and how critical it is our functioning in the complex system we've created.

    THE INTERFACE IS THE INFORMATION. If you don't have an interface, you don't have any information. Period.

    Incidentally, I can think of a few reasons not to implement some of the changes that Storey suggests:
    - Bolded and highlighted text may draw the eye toward material that was incorrectly analyzed; or the burdern of analysis may fall upon the reader of that (original) memo.
    - The threat level may not be something that is established, but rather something that is established through decisions that come from this document

    Whether these kinds of metrics are appropriate in the case of the President is unknown to me. My main here is to illustrate that Storey's ideas, though thoughtful, are perhaps a bit sensational.
    .
    -shpoffo
    kNOw Research

    1. Re:Tufte, anyone? by evilviper · · Score: 1
      THE INTERFACE IS THE INFORMATION.

      Strange... So ASCII text contains no information then?

      I find this whole story completely stupid. Highlighting can be very useful in terribly dense fields of text, but in short sentences, with numerous paragraph breaks, highlighting does nothing to help.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    2. Re:Tufte, anyone? by shpoffo · · Score: 1

      Strange... So ASCII text contains no information then?

      Essentially, no - or yes (depending on your perspective), but not any more than the dimensions of the interface (grammer, syntax, alphabet, etc.)

      You're missing the point: the dimensions of information is so integral with the dimensions of the interface discriminating between the two of them is a gross assumption in our culture.

      I'd be interested in hearing the arguement developed in relation to combinatorics, or some other manner - but in the case of the former the domain is still finite - extended only through redefinition and memory loss.

      .
      -shpoffo

    3. Re:Tufte, anyone? by Merk · · Score: 1

      You're right of course, the formatting of the information has no bearing on the overall output. If it's written down, it's good enough. I don't know why people think such things. Do they think that people should use the blink tag to make their words stand out? Of course not. The only thing that matters is the words. Was that memo useful? No, it only contained "lorem ipsum" and stuff. Would that help you decide whether or not the world was in danger? No. It's the contents that matter. Formatting is just something you do to make it pretty. Who cares about making it pretty? When it's the fate of the world at stake you don't want to distract them with pretty boxes, lines, or other things. Oh, by the way, bin Laden is determined to strike in the US tomorrow. Obviously you'll know that from reading this paragraph. It's not like I need to put blinking lights around that or anything. All I had to do was write it. In fact, blinking lights might distract you from the important message I'm conveying.

    4. Re:Tufte, anyone? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Congratulations, you've attempted to prove me wrong, by proving my point...

      "Highlighting can be very useful in terribly dense fields of text,"

      ie. Your post.

      but in short sentences, with numerous paragraph breaks,

      ie. Presidents daily briefing.

      "highlighting does nothing to help."

      Your example is complete BS anyhow, as nothing important is ever written in a dense block of text like you've written, with no proper formatting, surrounded by COMPLETELY UNRELATED text.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  60. Precisely by Ogemaniac · · Score: 1

    It is what I have been saying all along. Note the threat level of nine. That is where the author's logical reasoning goes wrong. In hindsight, the threat was a nine, or even a ten. But in foresight, it was just another needle in a very big haystack. Would it have caught the president's attention if the box was green and was rated a 4?

  61. Design Error by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This is a really good demonstration of the inherent danger in design. The revamped design, pretty though it is, forces the author, rather than the recipient, to reduce the content into a numerical risk assessment and three key facts, exactly the sort of activity that takes time and is almost impossible to get anyone to agree on. Furthermore, as the designer says, 'Nothing in the text is emphasised (presumably ignoring the italics), making it difficult to scan'. Well, that's fine if you don't want people to read your document. It's how press releases are designed. But it's a really, really bad idea to allow documents that need to be read to be 'easy to scan'. And highlighting the author's idea of what the 'key words' is worse, as it's likely to distort the apparent meaning of the document. Colour still doesn't work well in fax machines.

  62. News for nerds?-Three Strikes, then post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Instead, I'd argue it's a fight against fallacy and illogic. Much of the action of the US government is driven by fear, greed, and emotion, which runs counter to the typical geek way of analysing and responding to a situation."

    The "geek way" would have some merit over the other way, if it wasn't wrong so many times.

    1. Re:News for nerds?-Three Strikes, then post! by MarkRose · · Score: 1

      I wasn't arguing that the "geek way" is somehow superior -- it is merely different. It is this difference that creates the conflict.

      --
      Be relentless!
  63. Ask yourself ONE QUESTION!! by torpor · · Score: 1


    Who benefitted from 9/11?

    ANSWER: BUSH AND HIS NEO-CON CRONIES. The American Military-Industrial Complex.

    It was ignored, because it was advantageous for those morons to have such an activity occur in the midst of their failing, corrupt, reign of power.

    The fact is, Americans were betrayed. Revolt, or change the channel!

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  64. No when bush heard the name bin laden by ergean · · Score: 1

    "Isn't that one of the Saudi ruling family? Must be that crazy idiot who ran in Afganistan."

    Hi had prior knoledge of the Bin Laden either by state affaiers or by it's family relations.

  65. better remember that for next time then? by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of that 2DTV sketch with Bush and his general:

    General: "Its time for your 3 o'clock briefing Mr President"
    Bush: "Err? Huh?"
    General (sigh) *pulls out big novelty Mickey Mouse clock with pictures on it* "What time is it sir?"
    Bush: (excited) "Its mousy time!!"

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  66. We knew since 1995 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My question is this: Some rich, powerful members of the Saud and bin Laden family, some Saudi agents, and some Pakistani agents must have had wind of the attack, and yet they feared the wrath of America so little that they never tried to stop it or tip off American intelligence. Why is that?

    Part of Operation Bojinka involved a similar attack in the US:

    A report from the Philippines to the United States on January 20, 1995 stated, "What the subject has in his mind is that he will board any American commercial aircraft pretending to be an ordinary passenger. Then he will hijack [the] said aircraft, control its cockpit and dive it at the CIA headquarters."

    There were plenty of warnings during the Bush and Clinton administrations. The warnings were not really ignored either. The FAA would issue warnings and airports would go to a heightened state of alert. (This happened during the summer of 2001, but the heightened state of alert was over before September.)

    The problem is that there was no support for anything that would actually make a difference.

    e.g., drastically tougher screenings, attacking Afghanistan, rounding up people with expired or suspicious visas, FBI investigations into foreign students in US flight schools...

    Politically, there was no way Clinton or Bush would have gone for any of those things. Clinton already caught enough shit from the Republicans + left-wingers after his cruise missile attack on a terrorist training camp.

    1. Re:We knew since 1995 by Boronx · · Score: 1

      e.g., drastically tougher screenings, attacking Afghanistan, rounding up people with expired or suspicious visas, FBI investigations into foreign students in US flight schools...

      Politically, there was no way Clinton or Bush would have gone for any of those things. Clinton already caught enough shit from the Republicans + left-wingers after his cruise missile attack on a terrorist training camp.


      Certainly after the embassy bombings or the Cole bombing, and the foiled Millenium bombing Clinton could have attacked Afghanistan and performed some of the measures you mentioned above, and he was more hampered politically than Bush in this regard, although Bush had some distance between him and the attacks.

  67. 18K Americans die every year from no healthcare by Cryofan · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Who cares about Bin Laden? The real killer is lack of a national healthcare system, like every other western nation has. That lack is killing 18K Americans every year.

    --
    eat shiat and bark at the moon
    1. Re:18K Americans die every year from no healthcare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't Kelly saying he wanted to implement this if he got the presidency? Bush responded laughingly that it would cost to much - he wanted the money to fight those terrorists instead...

  68. Re:Latin Jibberish Generator... probably from iWor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    Let me draw this to you:
    ._.
    |_| <-- Joke
    ' '

    0 <---- Andromeda Galaxy

    o <---- Moon

    . <---- You
  69. As if... by NoelWeb · · Score: 0

    As if it could've made a bit of a difference anyway. Quite frankly, accoring to some reports, "the man," had spent 40% of his time in office up until that point ON VACATION!
    I clearly remember the scene of "the man" being notified of the attacks while reading a book to a classroom full of children, and seeing the bewildered look upon his face that seemed to last an eternity. That look spoke of "No shit!?," and "Oh shit!" at the same time stuck home with me big-time!
    I get that same look upon my face when I get caught choking the chicken. So I know how it feels... but my chicken-choking never cost 3000 lives!
    They, "the neo-cronies," KNEW about Bin Laden, they KNEW he was capable, they KNEW had done it before (1993 trade center bombing, 1995 Murrah building bombing - yes that was al qaida inspired too - Terri Nichols is linked to abbu sayef in the phillipines), and they knew of Tanzania, and that other place that I can't think of)! What more does it take?!
    We needed more intelligence in the middle east, particularly those in Bin Laden's circle. We didn't have it, never did, probably never will. So, since 1993 (and probably long before), we/they knew he hated us, knew he was attacking us, knew he was capable of some really bad shit, and we/they did nothing to stop him - even after we could've stopped him DEAD dozens of times (the Sudan had him and offered him to us on a plate, damnit, and Tora-Bora, of course) Tora-Bora was a humongous blow-job... "let's just leave Bin Laden to the Northern Alliance... they'll get him!" Yeah... unless Bin Laden just happens to be FRIENDS with all of them... what a joke... So... with all that said... the intelligence doc presented here... what difference could it have made after all this... formatted nicely, or not!?

  70. On an article on usablity, how is it possible.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    that the author's web page sucks so bad.
    1. Menu half way down screen make navigation difficult
    2. Image of zepplin is overwhelming
    3. Text body begins half way down page


    -AC
  71. You must be reading a different /. too me by CHESTER+COPPERPOT · · Score: 1
    which runs counter to the typical geek way of analysing and responding to a situation.

    No. No. No.

    Smart people especially geeks on this site believe stupid things as well. Just because you guys are geeks doesn't make you any more intellectually better than ANYONE else. Consider the actors that make up this site:

    The editors. Our /. overlords who regularly post dupes without utilizing their 'typical geek analysing' to see whether or not an article has been posted.

    The posters. Survey this site at -1 some time. It's no wonder the slashdot subculture article on Wikipedia gives our community such a bad rap. IMO, in any subculture there are only a few smart individuals all the rest are just guys/gals who ride the meme wave mid-coitus because they like being part of a group. It gives them an identity or the groupthink that many people espouse of here.

    The mods. Well, like the GP stated you can't piss these guys off. Considering the mods have modded up in this thread a post that reeks of conspiracy and tin foil hat FUD I have my doubts about these actors as well considering they are the posters who also make up the rabble here.

    So why are there so many stupid people here that seem smart? Because geeks believe stupid things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-intelligent reasons. How many people here still hold beliefs they received before they got the magical geek skill of analysis and intellectual brilliance?

    I'll leave you guys to found out yourself. Heres a start though there are some biases found in psychology that might be of use. They are called intellectual attribution bias and confirmation bias.

    "When men wish to construct or support a theory, how they torture facts into their service." John Mackay, Extraordinary Popular delusions and the Madness of Crowds.

    1. Re:You must be reading a different /. too me by MarkRose · · Score: 1

      If I had the ability to, I would mod your post insightful. You are right that the slashdot subculture is full of memes. You are right that we are mostly followers. You are right that we sometimes do illogical things ourselves. In the end, we are all only human.

      My argument is not that we are better, but that we are different. We have just as many flaws. The point is we tend to see things differently. Your post is an excellent example of this: while the typical person would likely flame away, you constructed a logical, well-thought, and supported reply. While your style of post is not necessarily better to the average person, your style of imparting and persuading is better to the average slashdotter. You respond in the way we perceive the world, while the US government does not.

      --
      Be relentless!
  72. So what you mean to say is.. by AkaXakA · · Score: 2, Informative

    There is no spoon?

    PS. Also not that this redesign is A YEAR old.

  73. Edward Tufte links by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Linkage: Edward Tufte's The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint. Full of good information for anyone that must present some sort of data, not just those using PowerPoint.

  74. I hate to respond to a troll but... by Goonie · · Score: 1
    I can't stand GWB, but you're right that conspiracy theories claiming that Shrub and the neocons actively conspired to help kill thousands of Americans are nuts. However, I think you are failing to distinguish between conspiracy theorists, and those who claim, with some justification, the administration was highly incompetent when it came to dealing with the threat of terrorism.

    In any case, you blame the Democrats for various crazies who are regularly disowned by the mainstream party. When was the last time your guys disowned, say, Ann Coulter?

    Unfortunately you guys decided the spoiled, aristocrat who's never had to work a day in his life would be a better representation of your values.

    You crack me up. You picked Bush over Kerry because Kerry was a dillettante? Or are layabout sons of monarchs, er, presidents, OK for Republicans?

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  75. Talk about uninformed by nagora · · Score: 1, Insightful
    John O'Neil specifically told Bush that Bin Laden was going to attack the Twin Towers and he was told not to follow up on his information. He quit his job at the FBI - where he had been tracking OBL for years since the Kenya bomb and was know to be THE expert on OBL's activities - and became the head of security at the WTC. He took the job because he was 100% sure an attack was coming and three days into the job, that's where he died a fucking hero actually trying to make the world a better place for his fellow man while Bush sat paralysed in front of a bunch of school children and near pissed himself wondering if his keeness to protect his Saudi friends and their business interests was going to lead to his impeachment and maybe even, given the seriousness of effects of his corruption, execution for what at that point was thought to be 50000 cases of negligent manslaughter.

    Document design? DOCUMENT DESIGN! Catch goddamn trip on the clue train here, you people. Clinton told the secret services to go gently on Saudi Arabia, but Bush specifically told them to DROP all investigations that looked like they were going to finger anyone important. Like, for example, any members of that nice Bin Laden family that the Bushes have always got on so well with that they were allowed to leave the country while all other flights were grounded.

    Document design! Christ, talk about wanting to believe the lies.

    TWW2

    --
    "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  76. Re:Lorem Ipsum = danger? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  77. The new format lacks readability! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The new format, although much improved, still lacks readability.
    • The text is to wide. Should not be more than 55-60 characters (including space)
    • The typeface (font) should have serifs if the intent is to be printed.
    Otherwise it look nice, has good spacing and easy to folow highlights.
    1. Re:The new format lacks readability! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I will reply to myself...

      The highligts will help the reader catch the key information. But this is the problem (as many others pointed out). Is it the job of the author or the reader to decide what information is key information?

    2. Re:The new format lacks readability! by kronocide · · Score: 1

      Also, it's stupid that it's in Latin. Almost no one understands Latin these days.

      (That was a joke. ;-)

  78. Latin? Frickin Latin? by nanoakron · · Score: 1

    So a more legible document is one IN LATIN???

    Is it just me or WTF?

    -Nano.

  79. The REAL concerns of this nation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not Dear Leader lobbing nukes at us.
    Not Saddam and those stinkbombs we have still yet to find.

    It's two guys getting married, and allowing a vegetable some peace.

    That's the impression I get from this administration anyway.

  80. "45 Minute Dossier" by NekoXP · · Score: 1


    Some of these "designers" should look at what nearly destroyed the BBC
    a couple years back, concerning "design" of important documents to make
    them stand out to officials and/or the public.

    Maybe some effort should be made in explaining terrorist threats to
    politicians, rather than writing 1000-page dossiers, short-feed snippets
    like you'd get in a magazine. Having people talk to people is much more
    likely to get the point home than a bit of paper which can be whisked
    from INBOX to TRASHCAN.

  81. Rehash of Edward R. Tufte's challeneger work? by fatfarm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Years ago Edward R. Tufte said the same thing about the space shuttle challenger failure. Tufte's big thing is clarity in visual representations of data and he spends more than a dozen pages in "Visual Explanations" ripping on the failure of the engineers to communicate in 13 faxed documents the evidence they had that launching in the cold temperatures forecast for the next day would likely result in failure of the rubber o-rings. Sounds very familiar.

  82. What if they had caught it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There would be no

    War on terror
    PATRIOT ACT
    enemy combatant status
    US troops in Iraq
    US troop surrounding Russia
    US (and UK) troops committing war crimes as a result of the actions of lying politicians
    colour-coded Republocratic revolutions
    heaps of dish for Haliburton etc
    Israel crying 'wooo boogey man' - oops no change there.
    etc
    etc

  83. FUCK /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when is a document an "input device?" Also this is a fucking year old. I remember this posted on Waxy back in '04.

  84. Re:Latin Jibberish Generator... probably from iWor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a tosspot.

    The only thing in this thread that is amusing is your completely out of context trollish fuckup.

  85. Re:how about a sock puppet show? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    www.2dtv.co.uk is the main site, though there isnt a video with the sock puppet on it atm, theres one with arnie -

    http://www.2dtv.co.uk/movie/arnie_and_bush.htm

    theres a still pic of it here :

    http://www.2dtv.co.uk/picture/bush.jpg

  86. This is the easy part by nomadicGeek · · Score: 1

    Making the information look pretty is the easy part. The hard part was realizing that this particular briefing amongst all of the other threat information that he receives is the important one.

    Spread out 100 documents with this pretty formatting with information about China's increased militarization, Kim Jung Il being a nut case and selling weapons everywhere, the Pakistani's selling nuclear technology, former Soviet nuclear weapons being unaccounted for, Aryan Nation yoyo's wanting to bomb buildings, and every other threat that he hears about everyday and tell me which one is the threat that is going to bite you in the ass next. It isn't that easy.

    If you knew before hand, which one was the really important one, you could write it on a napkin with a crayon and it would still work. I guess if I was a graphic designer though I would be trying to save all of the world's problems might making their descriptions look pretty too.

  87. Re:Lorem Ipsum = danger? by Actuator+Man · · Score: 1
    Bush: statisticians, circumferences, differentiate
    You expect us to believe that? Bush could never pronounce those difficult words!
  88. Check out the design of the US immigration forms by narnian · · Score: 1

    I have had to enter the US around 5 times in the last 10 years or so. Every time I visit I cannot fail to believe they still use this form for entry - I-94 . This form looks like something typeset in the 50's. When I compare this to the type of forms we have used in Australia since at least the late 80's (ie post Mac and Windows) I can't imagine why they still use such archaic designs. On every flight I made there were many people making the same mistake as I did. With a short surname , you almost feel compelled to write your date of birth on the top line. And you don't want to present an incorrectly completed form to the US customs dudes!! Compare this with the Aussie form - Incoming Passenger Card. It is clear, readable and unlikely to cause errors due to comprehension or legibility. (And I won't mention the US paper currency) There is a clear conservatism in the US when it comes to form design - apart from the angst it causes US visitors - it may have cost lives on 9/11

  89. If you want a good laugh by tezza · · Score: 1
    Check out

    Flight attendant activated warning
    Wireless remote control of systems for countering hostile activity aboard an airplane.

    For the second one especially, check out the illustrations! I've been looking into patenting something, and the amount of bogus safety patents after 11/9 is amazing.

    --
    [% slash_sig_val.text %]
  90. Same Clarke who attacked Bush in 2004? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Bush could have just asked his head of counter terrorism, Richard Clarke, if the threat was serious

    Would this be the same Richard Clarke who was head of US counterterrorism for eight years under Bill Clinton, when Bil Laden built his organization and pulled off such attacks as Khobar Towers, African Embassy bombings, and the USS Cole attack?

    Or would this be the same Richard Clarke who permitted Bin Laden family members to leave the US after 9/11?

    Or the same Richard Clarke who blamed Bill Clinton for not destroying terrorist training camps after the USS Cole bombing?

    If Clarke is right about anything, it's only because he's like a stopped clock - right twice a day only because of coincidence.

    1. Re:Same Clarke who attacked Bush in 2004? by Boronx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or would this be the same Richard Clarke who permitted Bin Laden family members to leave the US after 9/11?

      He approved the request, but who made it? Clarke has come clean, why did the rest of the administration cover it up?

      Would this be the same Richard Clarke who was head of US counterterrorism for eight years under Bill Clinton

      Yes, and you left out the foiled Millenium bombings. I'm not a big fan of Clarke's, but he's been right about the threat posed from bin Laden for a long time now.

      Or the same Richard Clarke who blamed Bill Clinton for not destroying terrorist training camps after the USS Cole bombing?

      Do you think Clarke was wrong here?

      If Clarke is right about anything, it's only because he's like a stopped clock.

      He seems to be a lot better bet than either Clinton or Bush when it comes to assessing terrorist threats, don't you agree?

    2. Re:Same Clarke who attacked Bush in 2004? by Ricwot · · Score: 1

      Erm, allowing family members to leave the country:

      The only legal thing you can do to a foreign diplomat is expel them from the country. Detention is illigal, and an act of war.

    3. Re:Same Clarke who attacked Bush in 2004? by Boronx · · Score: 1

      I've never read anything that suggested they were all or even most diplomats.

  91. The president is a man of strong faith. by jack_n_jill · · Score: 0
    This is all wrong. The president is a man of strong faith and weak intellect. Using strong colors in a document just makes the president want to reach for his crayons and color in the spaces. That is not the way to get his attention.

    The best way alert the president is through religious symbolism. If there were a cross on the top along with the words "From the desk of God" then the president would sit up pay attention. A system could be devised where the level of the threat could be indicated by the size of the cross. We need a system that fits the president.

  92. "no fashion to flame the US" my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just read the comments posted about "rednecks" and "idiots" and "moving to Canada" after Bush was reelected. /. mod points are firmly in the hands of self-styled "progressives" who enjoy affluence and privledge but live a fantasy, frothing at the mouth about being "repressed" under a "Nazi tyranny", all the while spouting crap that under a real tyranny would get them thrown in jail or maybe fed feet-first into a plastic shredder.

    Just look at how the "Bush was selected, not elected" posts get modded up. Heck, just look at how your pap got modded up, and how this post got modded down (as I'm sure it will).

    You even go so far as to state:

    Much of the action of the US government is driven by fear, greed, and emotion, which runs counter to the typical geek way of analysing and responding to a situation. To us, the actions and methodologies of the US government are at best unreasonable and at worst insane.

    So, now you're saying that a group of people who tell self-deprecating but truth-based jokes about always getting beat up, not getting laid, jerking off to on-line porn, living in their parent's basement, and generally having the social skills of an overcooked rotten potato are now authoritative on the motives of the US government and the generally powerful, successful, socially-able folks that run it?

    Isn't that about the same as a dairy farmer commenting on how well a few millions lines of Perl code are written?

  93. Re:Lorem Ipsum = danger? by swiftstream · · Score: 1

    Monday morning Congress will pass the Lorem Ipsum Homeland Patriotism Act

    Dude, you seriously need to work on coming up with names for legislation. Lorem Ipsum Homeland Patriotism Act doesn't even have a cool acronym (LIHP Act? Huh?), and that's just plain un-American. We've learned from the PATRIOT Act and INDUCE Act that it's much better to go with something like "Lorem Ipsum Federal Emergency Act (LIFE Act)"--protecting the lives of Americans everywhere!

    --
    Be a PATRIOT--because the only thing we have to fear is the lack thereof.
  94. D'oh... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    A simple "PRIORITY: " line on the top of the page would have sufficed. It didn't have to be red.

    But yeah, the point is that some information was missing on the reports.

    Here are some possible descriptions for priorities:

    "PRIORITY 9: CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER". Hey, If we're talking about design, why not use some "threat control" software a-la sourceforge?

    Just fill the blanks, enter the priority level, and it'll be highlighted in red.

  95. So why did BILL CLINTON ignore this!!!???!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are taking one out of hundreds of thousands "Chicken Little" documents and using your hindsight ( head peering out from inside of your piehole ) to look back in time at Bill Clinton's watch, and applying future events to a those involved that had less then perfect information.

    I suppose that if you have ever played Poker that after the hand is done being played out that go on tilt because your 2-7 offsuite would have won.

    You must have had a public education.

  96. grammar marms by SpacePunk · · Score: 1

    Perhaps we need a Secretary of Grammar?

  97. Bad design really an issue? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1
    Would a better designed document have helped the US government better assess the danger that Bin Laden posed in August 2001?

    It might have helped a novice like the author who isn't used to reading internal government documents but I don't think that was the real problem. Remember government reports are probably formatted and have been formatted in a certain way for specific purpose. Government officials are probably used to the format so it's not a matter of comprehension. I don't think it was a matter of threat assessment either.

    Several government officials did recognize the threat. Members of the FBI anti-terrorism groups were alerted that an attack was imminent but due to poor communication between the intelligence agencies no one person had all the details of where, who, how, etc. The problem was, for whatever reason, those in charge at the highest levels did think an attack was imminent.

    Frontline carried a story of former FBI agent John O'Neil a year after 9/11. "The Man Who Knew" chronicles his time at the FBI where he became the FBI's foremost expert on Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. Due to some personal problems and professional problems with his superiors, he left the FBI after his superiors stopped listening to his warnings. Ironically, he took a job as head of security of the WTC in the August 2001 and was among those killed in the World Trade Center on 9/11.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  98. President only? by mindstormpt · · Score: 2, Funny

    No matter how you present it, he won't know how to read it anyway, so what's the point? If you really really but really want him to do it, you can try turning it upside down and placing it inside "My Pet Goat", but results are not guaranteed.

  99. But all threats *aren't* equal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So it's asinine to say that everyone should develop their own filtering system. Imagine how well that would make security work. TSA is bad enough when they're all supposedly on the same page.

    There has to be some sort of prioritization of threats.

    But because Al Qaeda is a rather secretive organization, we do not have perfect intelligence on what it's doing and what it's going to do, and what it's trying to do.

    So, simple statistics say that the US government can't get it all right, all the time.

    In the absence of perfect knowledge, the only way to raise the confidence level of stopping any attempted terrorist attack it to expand security measures in such a way as they are guaranteed to also do things like throw innocent people in Gitmo or put Teddy Kennedy on a no-fly list - probably an honest mistake as someone mistyped "drive" as "fly"... :-)

    But seriously, that's the choice governments are faced with: act only against those folks it knows with certainty are terrorists, and stop, for example, 62% of all terrorist attacks, or lower the standards for determining against who to act, and stop, say, 94% of all attempted terrorist attacks. And it's not just the US. Probably all national governments on this planet have someone opposed that would perform true terrorist acts against the government if they were able to.

    Now toss in the consideration that someday terrorist groups will get access to nukes, or ways to deliver poison gas or biological agents in ways to kill millions.

    Until kids worldwide are taught from day one that that their next-door neighbor isn't a mortal enemy that stole their parent's land and who need to be killed in any way possible even if that means killing yourself, governments world-wide will face this nasty choice.

    And if you think the above paragraph is mainly aimed at Islam, you're damn right it is. While not all Moslems are terrorists, it certainly seems that all terrorists are Moslems. Look at how filmmakers in the Netherlands that expose Islamic misogyny are treated....

  100. Re:It doesn't matter how the document was designed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is EarlG here. So the truth is a troll? Nice work moderators. You've shown your true Bush-worship colors again. You think that maybe looking-out for that criminal he'll look-out for you. Guess what, he doesn't care about you. Unless you're a member of his elite group he wants you unemployeed, homeless, and starving to death. He's proven his real goals over and over again. He hates you. Never forget that.

  101. Wait by northcat · · Score: 1

    Are US politicians (or whoever was supposed to look at that document) so dumb that they can't grasp critical information if it's not provided in big shiny colours like in hollywood movies? I'm guessing not. I remember seeing something like this about NASA, the Columbia shuttle disaster and powerpoint presentations. People (especially people who make it to NASA) aren't that dumb. I hope.

  102. Old news by Devil · · Score: 1

    I don't mean to burst anyone's bubble, but I remember Airbag posting this, like, TWO YEARS ago.

  103. Yes we did by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But who would have known at the time he would turn on us? ( other then him )

    Sometimes you have to take risks to get things done.. Sometimes you win, other times you loose.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Yes we did by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...other times you loose.

      As opposed to other times you tighten?

    2. Re:Yes we did by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In response to the poster who said "who knew how he would turn out"

      If you know anything about history, the only reason why the US would train people in conflict is so that they can influence in those countries, not to promote TRUE freedom and democracy.

      The US has a bad precedent supporting dictatorships and fascist like societies.

  104. And maybe bigger print and happier colours... by webzombie · · Score: 1

    Granted good design does improve the message delivery but at this level they are supposed to read. And at the very least they have enough people around them who can read that design should not come into play.

    As a graphic designer I agree that we could help people, organizations and governments communicate better but I think we should concentrate our efforts on communicating with people - taxpayers - not government agency to government agency.

  105. I don't think this will work by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

    There aren't enough pictures

    --
    -1 Uncomfortable Truth
  106. His design is actually worse! by tentimestwenty · · Score: 1

    As a designer, I have to say that there is no value in making important documents look "designed". He simply applied all the mediocre designer's tools to making this document look like all the other pharmaceutical handouts, job quotes or resumes on the planet. He's succeeded in making it look nice and average, safe and bland which completely saps any urgency to actually read it.

    The key to designing something that needs to be read is to make it stand out from all the other things you read all day. The problem with the original is simply that there was too much text and not enough white space. As well, the text should have been written with the main concern as the first sentence, i.e. not as a vague assessment of fact but as a personal affirmation that "We believe Bin Laden will attack."

    For the design, just print it on a purple piece of paper and use white for everything else. When someone gets a purple memo, they know it's rare and a must-read.

  107. Reichstag = World Trade Towers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Learn your history, you fools.
    The WTC attack is exactly what the GOP was looking for, so they could enact the (already written) PATRIOT act.
    That's why these documents were "ignored"
    Lowercase w, Darth Cheney, Donald Rumsfailed, and Condaliar Rice are all guilty of HIGH TREASON.
    I used to not believe in the Death Penalty, but these 4 deserve it.

  108. Our new Pearl Harbor by SideshowBob · · Score: 1

    A neo-conservative Washington-based organization known as the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), funded by three foundations closely tied to Persian Gulf oil and weapons and defense industries, drafted the war plan for U.S. global domination through military power.

    The PNAC was founded in the spring of 1997 by the well-known neo-conservatives Robert Kagan and William Kristol of The Weekly Standard.

    Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz signed a Statement of Principles of the PNAC on June 3, 1997, along with many of the other current members of Bush's "war cabinet."

    The 90-page PNAC document from September 2000 says: "The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

    "Even should Saddam pass from the scene," the plan says U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain, despite domestic opposition in the Gulf states to the permanent stationing of U.S. troops. Iran, it says, "may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests as Iraq has."

    A "core mission" for the transformed U.S. military is to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars," according to the PNAC.

    The strategic "transformation" of the U.S. military into an imperialistic force of global domination would require a huge increase in defense spending to "a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually," the PNAC plan said.

    "The process of transformation," the plan said, "is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor."

    Veteran journalist John Pilger recently wrote about one of PNAC's founding members, Richard Perle: "I interviewed Perle when he was advising Reagan, and when he spoke about 'total war,' I mistakenly dismissed him as mad," Pilger wrote. "He recently used the term again in describing America's 'war on terror.' 'No stages,' he said. 'This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq . . . this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war . . . our children will sing great songs about us years from now.' "

    "This is garbage from think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks," Dalyell said, "men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war.


    -- America Pearl Harbored
  109. Design is vastly underrated on Slashdot by saltydogdesign · · Score: 1

    There's a large contingent of Slashdotters who believe that design is something you do with drapes, and that it is a girly activity that has no place in the manly world of information. You see this reaction in the knee-jerk hatred of Flash, as though the technology itself were responsible for its misuse by uneducated morons. Fact is, design is as serious and complex a discipline as programming, or physics, or just about anything else you can think of. Moreover, people have been at it longer than almost anything else, judging by those drawings on the cave walls in France. We live in a world in which *everything* is designed (try spending a little time looking around you to see what hasn't been designed. From where I sit, there isn't much that falls into this category -- even the bunch of bananas sitting to my left has a little sticker on them with a logo. In a world where information is in such great quantity, design is crucial. And when you are constantly competing with other designers, amateur design doesn't cut it -- it's got to be *good* design. It's good to see an article emphasizing this point of view.

    --
    // This is not a sig.
  110. Edward Tufte and Challenger Disaster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is similar to Edward Tufte's argument on Engineers' presentation of previously known O-ring problem in Challenger to management.

    This is the best link, i could find while googling. Could not find Tufte's article
    http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:iPpRSV0eSlYJ: www.rit.edu/~wlrgsh/FINRobison.pdf+challenger+and+ Edward+Tufte&hl=en

  111. Huge crimes are ignored. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 0, Offtopic


    Not completely behind the scenes: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.

    When corrupters do a big enough crime, it overwhelms people so much that they ignore it. There are entire books detailing Karl Rove's dishonest methods, but they don't get attention.

  112. use of Latin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Duis varius. Mauris libero orci, sodales sed, tempor ac, bibendum vitae, urna. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.

    Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
    (Anything said in Latin sounds profound.)

  113. Jeez, call in the Star Trek editors! by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

    Are you sure it wasn't just a made-up concept with a pseudo-funky name that the new designer invented to sound "cool"?

    Half of that redesign wasn't a change in graphic design, it was a complete change in content and implied a complete change in process. Chances are the designer had absolutely no idea what processes this document actually fits into in reality, and has equally little idea whether the changes in content he made would offer any value, or even whether they'd actually make the document less useful.

    We should have just gone to red alert, switched on the force fields, and tractor-beamed the planes into the docking bay, Captain.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  114. Instead of a better designed document.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    howzabout a better designed president?

  115. No one man can do everything by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1
    This memo was obviously written by someone trying to get Bush's attention to actually give a shit about going after terrorism.

    And how many memos do you think the most powerful man in the world gets every day, trying to draw his attention to some concern that the author thinks is the most important thing in the world?

    Some groups had been advocating a tsunami warning system for years, which would have saved orders of magnitude more lives than foreseeing 9/11, at a fraction of the cost of clearing up the damage the tsunami caused when it hit.

    There are enough resources in the world to feed every human alive a good diet, yet many thousands die through malnutrition every year in third world countries, because the rest of the world doesn't do enough to help them.

    If a polar ice cap melts next year, causing millions of deaths as coastal cities are flooded all over the world, the critics will be saying that the environmentalists had been warning of this for years.

    If the super-volcanic eruption happens and blacks out the whole US, also killing millions, someone will point out that there was a documentary on TV a few months ago warning about the possibility.

    If an unpredicted asteroid hits the earth tomorrow and wipes out half the population of the planet, someone will be saying that the warnings were there and billions should have been invested in a super-defence-network-satellite-system-thing.

    I don't know whether Bush really missed something he should have seen, or indeed if the intelligence community collectively did. Maybe so, in which case that's a problem that needs fixing. But, while I'm no fan of GWB, I do have realistic expectations, and I recognise that there are limits to what one man -- however powerful -- can see and do.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    1. Re:No one man can do everything by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1
      "There are enough resources in the world to feed every human alive a good diet, yet many thousands die through malnutrition every year in third world countries, because the rest of the world doesn't do enough to help them."

      The primary cause of death through malnutrition is the deliberate action of dictatorial governments. The solution is to overthrow those governments and establish better ones. I doubt that such a solution would be widely tolerated.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    2. Re:No one man can do everything by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1
      The primary cause of death through malnutrition is the deliberate action of dictatorial governments.

      In many cases, yes it is. In some cases, it's not, and the work of aid agencies that rely primarily on charitable contributions to fund their work is critical. Just look at what's been achieved near the tsunami site, where the public collectively acknowledged the problem and voted with their wallets to do something about it. Yet more people die in Africa every year than died as a result of the tsunami, and we do relatively little to help.

      The solution is to overthrow those governments and establish better ones. I doubt that such a solution would be widely tolerated.

      We (several first world countries) have just overthrown the governments of both Afghanistan and Iraq for far less constructive purposes. Do you really think anyone at the top of, say, the US or UK governments is ever going to be held accountable? Hell, the US re-elected Bush despite that, and sadly it looks as though we in the UK are about to re-elect Blair (though probably with a much-reduced majority, not least because of his actions relating to Iraq).

      Some of the stuff that goes on in Africa makes the Middle East dictatorships look pleasant, and there's an obvious humanitarian motivation for waging war. Of course, they don't produce as much oil, and presumably it would therefore be somehow more illegal under international law to topple people like Mugabe than it was to topple Hussein or the Taleban?

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    3. Re:No one man can do everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was president. He received a blaring PDB warning (by PDB standards). He did nothing and stayed on vacation. While no man can do everything, the person entrusted to be the president of the United States sure the hell can come back from vacation when he receives credible warnings of imminent terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. But he did nothing.

      In fact, at that time Bush had amassed more vacation than any other president in U.S. history, except maybe Nixon. No one man can do everything. But when you take on the presidency of the United States and agree to be the commander in chief you don't fucking stay on vacation and do nothing when your analysts warn you in writing of imminent terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.

      I just the impression you have no idea what the PDB is. This wasn't just some random memo. It wasn't just some random documentary on TV.

    4. Re:No one man can do everything by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1
      He was president. He received a blaring PDB warning (by PDB standards).

      Just out of interest, how many such "glaring warnings" do you think a national commander-in-chief receives during his career? How many of them do you think appear so glaring before they become reality?

      While no man can do everything, the person entrusted to be the president of the United States sure the hell can come back from vacation when he receives credible warnings of imminent terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.

      Do you really think POTUS can't give any orders he feels necessary immediately, even when he's on vacation?

      If you think he misjudged the briefing, fine. If you think he did nothing when he should have acted, fine. But "coming back from vacation" is just PR.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    5. Re:No one man can do everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. He stayed on vacation. In every sense of the word. He literally did nothing about the problem. It isn't PR. It is fact. Bush ignored the warning, took no action, and continued on his vacation in every sense of the word. Sickening, really. The blood of innocents is on his hands (though that is nothing new -- he signed more death warrants as Governor of Texas than any other governor in United States history).

  116. Revisionism by pudge · · Score: 3, Informative
    This is nice revisionism and all, but there is no evidence that the memo in question was "ignored." The 9/11 Commission notes quite plainly on page 342 that:
    Despite such reports and a 1999 paper on Bin Ladin's command structure for al Qaeda,there were no complete portraits of his strategy or of the extent of his organization's involvement in past terrorist attacks.Nor had the intelligence community provided an authoritative depiction of his organization's relationships with other governments,or the scale of the threat his organization posed to the United States.

    Further:
    Whatever the weaknesses in the CIA's portraiture,both Presidents Bill Clinton and George Bush and their top advisers told us they got the picture--they understood Bin Ladin was a danger.But given the character and pace of their policy efforts,we do not believe they fully understood just how many people al Qaeda might kill,and how soon it might do it.At some level that is hard to define,we believe the threat had not yet become compelling.

    In other words, it's not that they didn't realize what the memos said, but at the time, the memos did not amount to compelling evidence of the threat we now know was coming.

    Now, you can feel free to disagree with the 9/11 Commission. But to say as a statement of fact that it was ignored is, well, ignoring the evidence (and inventing new evidence).
  117. News for nerds?-Statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Maybe you should spend some time meta-moderating. It'll give you a clearer view of what I'm talking about, here. Lots of mod-points are spent every day supporting popular opinion, and typically that opinion involves criticizing the US. But, gee, by some strange coincidence, despite the random sampling of posts you see with meta-moderation, criticisms of other gov'ts just don't make their way in there. (Funny, I'd expect Tony Blair to be more popular, there.)"

    There's one way to lay these "we're 80,000 completely random posters" excuse to rest. Read at all levels for one month, and classify were posts fall. Bet all those biasis people have been pointing out for the past couple years, will pop right out, and it is hard to argue with numbers.

  118. so very applicable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, this entire "intelligence failure" was clearly due to PRESENTATION. Similarly, if only the Bible and the Koran had better GRAPHIC DESIGN, all our religious problems would be solved.

  119. Am I missing something? by tqbf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Tufte's well-known critique of the Columbia presentation, and his famous critique of the Challenger data, centered on the use of visual evidence (idiotic charts, statistically incompetant graphs) and, in the former case, on the manner in which the medium (PowerPoint) butchered the message by making chopping it up into incomprehensible hamster pellets of information.

    The author here seems to be making the case that ugly typeface and a poor use of color are to blame; that if we just added a few horizontal rules, maybe put the PDB on nice stationary, it would have been more effective.

    When facing a dearth of actionable, analyzable data (like a chart with 4 data points), Tufte is likely as not to advocate doing exactly what the original PDB did, which is to stuff it into prose paragraphs.

    Tufte's design criticism work is serious, if perhaps overrated. This new one is just an advertisement for a web designer.

  120. This is really a stupid article by SirBruce · · Score: 1

    The problem with the memo wasn't that it was poorly presented. Everyone understood what the memo said and that it represented a threat. The memo said nothing really new; Bin Laden had publically declared war against us years earlier.

    The problem was that, at that time, the US had institutional inertia that said we should just go about our business and hope nothing happened and respond when it did. The general belief was any terrorist attack that actually managed to succeed would still be small in scale; on the order of 10s or 100s of deaths, not 1000s. Few actually thought they would actually be able to carry out a plan like 9/11, although it was certainly a possibility in many scenarios.

    But, as I said, this meant nothing new. It was true when Clinton was in office and it was true when Bush was in office. Neither did enough to be "proactive" and treat this threat with the seriousness it deseerved. After 9/11, a lot of people woke up to the truth, Bush included. Before 9/11, he's no more to blame than anyone else.

    Bruce

  121. Why indeed? by crashfrog · · Score: 1

    So why was it ignored?

    Probably for the same reason that the USAF was off playing wargames with, coincidentally, a fake airplane hijacking, and for the same reason that Dick Cheney stopped flying on airplanes right around the same time.

    --
    I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
    If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
  122. In a post 9-11 world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... templates are the key to national security.

    ------------------
    "It's a sign that we're all a little nervous in the post-9/11 world."

  123. How is this News Exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The word "news" comes from a special use of the plural of the word "new".

    While the memo was declassified last year, this re-design is also last year, as was the story in the WSJ.

    I wish I could put a big red 9 in my comment so /.ers don't ignore it. :)

  124. As a card carrying member of the AIGA... by edw · · Score: 1

    Looking at the before and after designs, I don't see anything spectacular. It simply looks more designed. I don't have anything against highly designed documents - after all, as I mentioned, I am a member of the American Institute of Graphic Arts - but equating more designed with more usable is a mistake.

    I wonder what the designer in question (Greg Storey) thinks of that most linear of documents, the novel. How might his tremendous design skills be brought to bear on the problem of more effectively presenting the information in A Tale of Two Cities than Dickens did?

    At some point this obsession with presentation begins to look like the problem it's trying to solve. Compare Storey's modified presidential daily briefing to Peter Norvig's PowerPoint version of the Gettysburg Address. Not quite as bad, but moving in the same direction.

  125. I don't know. The first was easier for me. by dalutong · · Score: 1

    While the second looked pretty, for some reason I couldn't understand anything past the Risk level 9 line. I know my vocabular doesn't stretch that far, but I don't think I understood a single word!

    --

    What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
  126. Not just governments by hawk · · Score: 1

    In some cases, it's rebels.

    But you've identified the core problem: it's not getting the food to the country, but the distribution once there. Last I checked, there weren't any countries, not even the ones with famine, that weren't getting enough food. Getting it to those that need it is the problem--and there seems to be little support for using foreign military power to do get it there.

    hawk

  127. That's where Clinton's problems came from by hawk · · Score: 1
    It was all Jocelyn Elders' fault. He though she said that you could get sex from aids . . .

    :)

    hawk

  128. WE DID NOT TRAIN BIN LADEN by WombatControl · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This line keeps getting repeated, and it's an absolute lie.

    There were two groups of people fighting in Afghanistan against the Russians. The first were the Afghans, and the second were the "Afghan Arabs" like bin Laden who came from the Gulf states and elsewhere. Neither of the two particularly cared for each other, but got along because they both hated the Russians.

    The mujihadeen that we gave money and arms to were all Afghans. The "Afghan Arabs" hated the US and wouldn't have accepted money or training from us if we'd offered.

    The people we did support were people like Ahmed Shah Masood. Masood was the founder of the Northern Alliance, and an enemy of the Taliban.

    In 2001, most of the fighting in Afghanistan was done by the Northern Alliance using US Special Forces and air support. The same people we gave help to in fighting the Russians later helped us fight the Taliban.

    We did not give money or weapons to bin Laden's group in Afghanistan. Even if we'd offered he would not have taken them.

    1. Re:WE DID NOT TRAIN BIN LADEN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After Bush became president and prior to 9/11, the United States government gave the Taliban $40 million dollars. This is fact.

  129. Same old crooks? by hawk · · Score: 2, Funny
    Hillary is pulling Jeb's strings???

    :)

    hawk

  130. ATTENTION CITIZEN! by Zeebs · · Score: 1

    (Score:5, Insightful), Bashing the slashdot moderation system is also groupthink.

    When resistance is a fashion, a badge you wear on your sleeve, they have total control.

    --

    Happy Noodle Boy says "F###ing doughnut! Mock me? You fried cyclops!!"
  131. Re:Lorem Ipsum = danger? by Phroggy · · Score: 1

    Monday morning Congress will pass the Lorem Ipsum Homeland Patriotism Act,

    No no, it has to be an easily-pronounceable acronym, e.g. the Lorem Ipsum National Defense Act, or... I dunno, that one's not very good, but you get the idea. If at all possible, the acronym should be a word related to the idea you want people to think when they head the name of the bill. Remember the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools
    Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act".

    --
    $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
    $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  132. And most times.. by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    And most other times we typo.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  133. Foolishly presumptuous by windowpain · · Score: 1

    When all you have is a hammer, evertyhing looks like a nail, so the saying goes.

    This designer is ridiculous. The problems surrounding this intelligence failure are far too complex to be ameliorated by redesigning a document.

    --
    Insert witty sig here.
  134. What are you smoking? Right-wing dumbass. by blueberry(4*atan(1)) · · Score: 1

    Stop watching FOX news propaganda and find out what's really going on. Sheep like you are killing America.

  135. How do we... by CXI · · Score: 1

    Now, where's that interface to mark a whole story as flame-bait again? Can't seem to find it...

  136. On the new design by goonies · · Score: 1

    Some things I noted watching the new design...
    its nice looking and all, but if you send it by FAX it looses quite a lot of its fancyness...
    you can't write threat level 10 into the threat matrix box... the design doesn't handle multiple pages.

    BUt after all it's still a good aproach/idea!

    Web design, huh? and where are the anim gifs/flash anims? ;-)

    --
    .sigh
  137. Hey! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm purus quis auctor, you insensitive consectetuer!

  138. That's one way to look at it by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

    Or, maybe people like to hire people they know and trust for the more obvious reason. They know and trust them! Think about it, if you know someone who could get the job done, that you could trust, and who you know would be a good employee, why would you bother to look for other "more qualified" applicants. It would be an idiotic waste of time, and a very poor decision. That's the reason the best way to get a job is to know someone who already works there.

  139. Right On! by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

    I'd say that just about sums up the situation around here. I can't believe how many people will openly say that the people on slascdot think what they do because they are smarter than everyone else. What a bunch of crap.

  140. Stupid "e" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If only he didn't spell his name with that damn "e" at the end I could make so many good Dick Clark jokes.

  141. Here is the true and unredacted text by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 2, Funny
    You guys are all wrong. Here is the actual, still secret document read by the President:

    Osama Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US

    Osama bin Laden is a bad man with a rifle and a beard. Osama is not America's friend. Osama and his friends are bad men that want to hurt America.

    Osama and his friend are saying bad things. They are saying very bad things. The things Osama and his friends are saying are bad, very bad.

    Osama is trying to send bad people with bombs to America. He and his bad friends want to make the bombs explode near Americans, so that the bombs will hurt or kill Americans.

    These are bad things to do. Somebody must stop them. The President of the United States of America may need to send people to stop Osama and his bad friends.

    Americans will be happy when they find that Osama and his bad friends have been stopped. They would be very angry and very sad if Osama and his bad friends send bombs to America and explode them near Americans to hurt or kill them.

    Some of Osama's bad friends say they will get on airplanes full of people in the United States and crash them into tall buildings. If this happens the people in the planes and in the buildings may be hurt or killed. The buildings may be damaged, or may even fall down. Big buildings like these are very expensive, and are often poorly insured. This would be very, very bad.

    The President should probably give orders to people to make sure these things do not happen, for they are bad things. It may be worth doing things to avoid having Osama and his bad friends attack us in those bad ways. Even if many people have to do extra work, they might need to be asked to do this extra work.

    In conclusion:

    • Osama and his bad friends are saying they will send people with bombs to America.
    • They plan on exploding the bombs near Americans to hurt or kill them.
    • They are also saying that they will crash airplanes into buildings in America. This would hurt or kill many people, and might damage the buildings or make them fall down.
    • The President should think about ordering some of his police and soldiers to stop Osama and his bad friends.
    • If Osama and his friends do these bad things, Americans will be very angry and very sad.

    If the President takes too long to stop them, and Osama and his bad friends do these evil and terrible things, the President may need to send soldiers, spies, and airplanes to attack Osama and his friends. This may cause oil prices to go up, way up. The President may need to spend a lot of extra money on soldiers, airplanes, bombs and other war supplies. A lot more.

    The people who buy and sell oil, or make, buy, or sell war supplies may need to make extra profits for a little while, but that is a sacrifice Americans will be glad to make in order to stop Osama and his bad friends. They will be even more glad, if other bad men in the general area where Osama and his bad friends are can also be attacked. At least one additional bad man should be found there and attacked, so that Americans can be even more glad. This will require even more profits for the oil and war supplies men, but they are good American Patriots, and Americans will be pleased to make even more sacrifices like that in order to attack the bad men.

    Many American soldiers, spies, police, and firemen will be hurt or killed. Many others will also be hurt or killed by Osama and his bad friends, as well as by our spies and soldiers as they try to kill the bad men. These are also sacrifices Americans will be happy to make in order to attack the bad men.

    If Americans are glad enough, they will reward the President and vote for him again, so that he will be President one more time. Americans will be gladdest when there is most excitement about the great deeds being done by their President.

    This is the end of this very important warning about Osama and his bad friends. The President should think about all of words and ideas in it. He should think very carefully. He should decide very carefully. The President should think about what needs to be done, and then do it. Sometimes the obvious thing to do is not the best thing. Sometimes another thing might be better, in the end.

  142. Queer eye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A three dollar bill, and your attention will help fix security flaws.

    Yeah right, when the interior of my office is redecorated with shades of puse, i'm sure i'll be able to better understand things.

  143. It wasn't ignored by ReadParse · · Score: 1

    It was taken about as seriously as something like that could have been taken, without the hindsight that we now have. I grew up in the seventies and eighties, the infancy of Islamic hijacking. These guys were largely crybabies who made a stink and usually didn't get what they wanted, and were usually captured and/or killed after a standoff on the ground after the flight landed. Occassionaly a crew member or passenger would get injured or killed, always a tragedy but always of extremely limited scale. And these hijackings were really, really rare.

    So, Osama wants to hijack a US aircraft. Interesting. Let me know when we know more. Let me know when he has guys living all over the US and taking flight lessons in preparation for a major attack on a beautiful September day when they'll do something we never friggin' dreamed of. Let me know something then.

    Well then folks will say we should have dreamed of it, that's what we get paid for or something like that. Well, OK. Tell you what. We'll restrict airports. We'll close down the first 8 rows or so of parking at airport terminals, we'll eliminate non-passengers from getting through security, we'll confiscate boxcutters, check shoes, take your cigarette lighters, profile those paying with cash and buying one-way tickets. Heck, we might even do the really smart thing and racially profile, since the liklihood of the attackers being of a certain race is extremely likely.

    Oh wait, we can't do that. Yeah, that's right, silly me. They'll nail us to a cross if we do all that. "Why the heck are you doing this? What's the threat?" We'll tell them that another Islamic Fundamentalist wacko that they can't even pick out of a line-up wants to hijack and airliner. Then they'll understand.

    On September 12th, the job of handling National Security on September 11th became a lot easier, with the only remaining required skill being time travel. If you have that skill, the job is yours. Otherwise shut up about how easy it is to figure out what's going on in the terrorist's minds and to keep them from doing every single thing we never imagined.

    RP

  144. Design saving lives by FunkyChild · · Score: 1

    I'd say this is a far better example of good design being put to use for the good of society:

    A School of Visual Arts Grad Remakes the Pill Bottle

  145. Unable to corroborate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The last paragraph says "We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as from a [blacked out] service in 1998 saying Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists."

    It might have to do with the lack of urgency this paragraph lent to the suggestion

    p.s. why is this under hardware and not Politics?

  146. Pretty pictures by neoee · · Score: 1

    I'm sure it would have been read if it had pretty pictures like The Pet Goat.

  147. But how would it have been classified? by kabbor · · Score: 1

    Here's a fact: That report was heavily low grade. It had no real information.
    If a grading system had been used, the writer would have used a low number. It really reads like a list of current musings, possibles to improbables.
    The last line seemed to be included against the writer's better judgement: As we read it, it is heavily qualified. He certainly would not have emphasised it.