And still there is THIS elk
"Numerous warnings had been made available to the intelligence community and military command, and up to "ten incidences [were] reported suggesting that the Khobar Towers are under surveillance" from April to June, 1996. These warnings came both before and after the beheadings of 4 Saudi nationals after their publicly confessed role in the November 1995 attacks in Riyadh. Clinton Administration officials admit that they "received a wave of threats against Americans and American installations in Saudi Arabia" in the weeks leading up to the attack, "but failed to prepare adequately for a bomb of the power that killed 19 American military personnel."[1" Less
In 1996, a State Department dossier spelled out Mr. bin Laden's operation and his anti-American intentions. And President Bill Clinton's own pollster told him the public would rally behind a war on terrorism. But none was declared.
By 1997, the threat of an Islamic attack on America was so well recognized that an F.B.I. agent warned of it in a public speech. But that same year, a strategy for tightening airline security, proposed by a vice- presidential panel, was largely ignored."
LARGELY IGNORED! By Clinton!
Moron, I'm NOT for the millionth fecking time defending Bush - clearly he made mistakes. But when you apply the same degree of due dilligence that you believe Bush should have had to Clinton and Obama and others you then you have to blame them as well. ISIS has grown to the strongest, most well funded terrorist army in history ALL during Obama. doesn't matter what happened before.
And this is unbelievable and shows the degree of your idiocy:
"Your such a RWNJ you keep trying to tell us about those 3 major attacks on Clinton's watch. Well stack all 3 of them on top of each other and put that beside 9/11 and see how far you are going to get with that. 9/11 (ON THE BUSH WATCH) totally dwarfs of all of them together"
MORON - Just because the terrorists didn't kill as many people as they had hoped to doesn't change the fact that 4 major attacks occured under Clinton - The objective of the first WTC attack was to collapse the buidling - you claim some victory for Clinton becuase the terrorist failed!? 4 attacks and Clinton did virtually nothing. Yes he blew apart an asprin factory and the adminsitrations response to that intel FAILURE was that they had "ample evidence' that the facility made chemical weapons.
"In fact, intelligence analysts had been warning for some time that terrorists could hijack planes. ON DECEMBER 4, 1998, FOR EXAMPLE, THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION RECEIVED A PRESIDENT’S DAILY BRIEF ENTITLED “BIN LADIN PREPARING TO HIJACK US AIRCRAFT AND OTHER ATTACKS.” THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION RESPONDED BY CONVENING ITS TOP COUNTERTERRORISM EXPERTS AND HEIGHTENING SECURITY AT AIRPORTS AROUND THE NATION."
So elk, if it was so obvious, why didn't Clinton do something about it for the 2 or so years that he was still president? So he heightened security at airports around the nation - presumably this was the same heightend security that was in place on 9/11! Great effort.
And is BS to suggest that Bush was ignoring the issue - they were working on alternatives to deal with the threat and as you know the reccomendations got to Bush on 9/10. Still, no matter how you cut it, the first WTC attack happened in Clinton's first year and he had 8 years to deal with the threat and we had 3 more major attacks under his watch. Was it so inconceivable that a terrorist would use a bomb laden spreed boat to attack a US warship? Yet thhat DID happen.
Again where I think you are a total idiot is to put everything on Bush when so much else happened under other presidents - including now with the build up of the most well funded and armed terror group in HISTORY under Obama's watch - which he had been told about for 2 years and did NOTHING.
ISIS would have just started somewhere else. That's the point. True that the failed government in Iraq has allowed them an easier path, but they got their foothold in Syria. Their ideology is based first on an islamic state.
"It was probably a mistake for George HW Bush to invade Iraq " This statement alone shows your're an idiot elk. So we should have been okay with Iraq taking over Kuwait!? At what country would you have done something?
Clinton not invade again!? Are you a moron? He didn't have to invade again we were still there! No fly zone mean anything to you? Was that the reason al qaeda was born?
And yes, in reltive terms OBL was hiding in plain sight before 9/11. He was using cell phones etc which allowed us to track him in the first place.As far as we know Clinton took one shot and missed. As for Tora Bora then bomb the #$%$ out of that mountain and OBL got away and then went dark.
Show me anything that has ever been specific about planes flying into buidlings in the US? Planes used in an attack could mean anything elk and there was strong indications that the target was overseas. And, if it was so easy to discover, why didn't Clinton since th eplanning was going on while he was in office.
Who's the fool Elk!? You act like the middle east was a stroll down primrose lane before Bush - Well, there were plenty of attackes before Bush and to suggest that Clinton went after OBL aggressively is beyond stupid. He was hiding in plain sight then elk. Wake up!
"First, Al Qaeda now is opposed ISIS even though ISIS used to be Al Qaeda in Iraq. Now recall that Al Qaeda never was a presence in Iraq until the Bush-Cheney invasions." Oh, I guess you're right on that Elk and that showsthe power of dictators who clamp down on these groups. Whether it sprouted first in Iraq and that is debateable, it is an ISLAMIC movement and like similar groups was going to emerge somewhere with or without Bush. But al qaeda, which ISIS sprang from certainly existed before Bush - so who missed that opportunity.
What I take most issue with elk is that in your mind there is no time, no mistakes, no bad policy decsions, no history before Bush and that is plain stupid. And to prove the point that it wasn't all about Bush, Clinton protects Muslims and we still get attacked and Obama, disengages from the Middle East and groups still want blood on our streets. You're critical of Bush for not acting on nebulous intel before 9/11 yet Obama has been warnned about ISIS for the past two years and did nothing and somehow that's okay.
I know its complex Rob, but perfect example. We asssited the islamists in the Afgan war, we protected muslims in the former Yugoslavia and what did it get us?
I also think you have to back to the Iranian revolution for another fundementalist islamic movement that set on course current events.
Your'e ignorance is on display elk, on so many fronts.
"Further, ISIS would not exist if Bush+Cheney hadn't launched two totally tragic and wasteful wars into the center of the Middle East' Are you serious!? ISIS is primarily a fundemental islamic movement - their objective is an islamic state. Not too dissimilar tfrom the take-over in Iran - opportunistic yes, but not driven by the west. Their first attacks were in Syria - did Bush invade Syria!?
How dense are you? Four major attacks under Clinton and the 9/11 planning was going while he was in office. The first attack on the WTC happened under Clinton and he treated as a crime rather recogizing what it really was. He did not go aggresively after OBL. That was left for Bush to handle - and yes, there were many indicators flashing red in 2001, but none were specific enough to do anything about.
Easy elk - ISIS is a creation during Obama. That means he owns it. So to say that we have no strategy to deal with something that evolved right under his nose, over four years is appalling. Especially since as we are now starting to hear he was warnned. Likewise, Bush inherited the mess left by Clinton and Clinton et al inherited the mess created during Carter, which is the modern day catalyst for much of our present day issues. I don't absolve Bush of anything. Plenty of big mistakes post 9/11 - but there is now way that 9/11 was soley his fault.
Right now there is a bunch of terror chatter related to the upcoming 9/11 anniversary...
Considering that their main objective is a calip(hate) I doubt our invasion was the catalyst for their ideas. The initial focus was in Syria. Clearly the US military withdrawal from Iraq created the opening for ISIS to expand into Iraq. You need to get that there are plenty of people over there that hate the West and the US long before Bush came along.
After a week of talk of eliminating the "cancer" of ISIS, President Obama said Thursday that he was not planning to significantly expand the war against the Islamic extremist movement anytime soon.
His remarks came after days of heated debate inside the top levels of his own national security bureaucracy about how, where, and whether to strike ISIS in Syria. But those deliberations – which included a bleak intelligence assessment of America's potential allies in Syria -- failed to produce a consensus battle plan. And so Obama, who has long been reluctant to enter into the Syrian conflict, told reporters Thursday that “we don’t have a strategy yet” for confronting ISIS on a regional level.
Those inside the administration advocating for going after ISIS in both Iraq and Syria were sorely disappointed – and lamented their boss's lack of urgency in rooting out a threat that only days before was being described in near-apocalyptic terms.
“Senior strategists in the U.S. government have been working hard all week to gather multiple options that the president had asked for to strike ISIS in Syria. There was a deep rooted belief among many -- especially among military circles -- that the ISIS threat can’t be kicked down the road, that it needs to be confronted now, and in a holistic way,” said one Obama administration official who works on the Middle East. “This press conference is going to lead to even more doubt by those that thought that this White House was ready to take meaningful action against ISIS across the board.”
OS were reduced by the same ratio. New awards will reflect the new price. Chill.
Wow keep, isn't the stock worth a 100x more now? What happens to the market cap? Craaaaazy stuff here keep. Will they reverse split the cost of your Tesla?
"A new report from the West Point counterterrorism center challenges the notion that the Islamic State only recently became a major terror threat, describing the network's gains in Iraq as a crisis four years in the making.
Meanwhile, Fox News has learned that top aides to President Obama expect the threat from the organization, also known as ISIS or ISIL, to outlast Obama's time in office.
The details underscore the challenge facing the U.S. government and its allies as the president and military advisers weigh how -- and where -- to confront the Islamist militant forces.
"ISIL did not suddenly become effective in early June 2014: it had been steadily strengthening and actively shaping the future operating environment for four years," the report from the West Point center said.
The report said that the "shattering" of Iraq's security forces in June is a "case-in-point, the result of years of patient preparatory operations."
The report, obtained in advance by Fox News, was published by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, an independent, privately funded research group. It was written by Michael Knights, with The Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
The report pointed to a long trail of warning signs, after leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi "re-booted" the organization in 2010. The report said it has developed a "highly-motivated cadre of light infantry forces" since 2012, while launching major attacks like a wave of car bombs across multiple cities that lasted until the end of 2013.
Despite these warning signs, President Obama earlier this year compared ISIS and related groups to a "jayvee team" during an interview with The New Yorker.
The White House has since defended those remarks, claiming the president was not referring only to the Islamic State. Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes also claimed earlier this month that the network indeed "has gained capacity in the last several months."
If you've been invested in this company for 4 years you were given two opportunities to vote for or against SA RS. And you can rest comfortably know that mgmt has the same shares that you do and they will be subject to the RS as well
pucker, there is no distinction in your example as its the same percentage gain in each case. If news comes out that increases the value of the compay by 10% in one sceanrio your pps goes up by $0.10 and the other by $10, but because the ratio of the shares is the same you end up in the exact same place.