9/11 Chair: Attack Was Preventable

[zimv20]

link (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/17/eveningnews/main589137.shtml)

9/11 Chair: Attack Was Preventable
NEW YORK, Dec. 17, 2003

For the first time, the chairman of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks is saying publicly that 9/11 could have and should have been prevented, reports CBS News Correspondent Randall Pinkston.

"This is a very, very important part of history and we've got to tell it right," said Thomas Kean.

"As you read the report, you're going to have a pretty clear idea what wasn't done and what should have been done," he said. "This was not something that had to happen."

Appointed by the Bush administration, Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, is now pointing fingers inside the administration and laying blame.

"There are people that, if I was doing the job, would certainly not be in the position they were in at that time because they failed. They simply failed," Kean said.

To find out who failed and why, the commission has navigated a political landmine, threatening a subpoena to gain access to the president's top-secret daily briefs. Those documents may shed light on one of the most controversial assertions of the Bush administration – that there was never any thought given to the idea that terrorists might fly an airplane into a building.

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," said national security adviser Condoleeza Rice on May 16, 2002.

"How is it possible we have a national security advisor coming out and saying we had no idea they could use planes as weapons when we had FBI records from 1991 stating that this is a possibility," said Kristen Breitweiser, one of four New Jersey widows who lobbied Congress and the president to appoint the commission.

The widows want to know why various government agencies didn't connect the dots before Sept. 11, such as warnings from FBI offices in Minnesota and Arizona about suspicious student pilots.

"If you were to tell me that two years after the murder of my husband that we wouldn't have one question answered, I wouldn't believe it," Breitweiser said.

Kean admits the commission also has more questions than answers.

Asked whether we should at least know if people sitting in the decision-making spots on that critical day are still in those positions, Kean said, "Yes, the answer is yes. And we will."

Kean promises major revelations in public testimony beginning next month from top officials in the FBI, CIA, Defense Department, National Security Agency and, maybe, President Bush and former President Clinton.


oops

[LethalWolfe]

My 2 cent reply: Hindsight is 20/20.


Lethal

[Gymnut]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
My 2 cent reply: Hindsight is 20/20.


Lethal

Well put.

[zimv20]

i just want to make sure i understand --

the head of the commission, a republican, appointed by bush, who has access to information we do not, says that 9/11 not only _could_ have been prevented but _should_ have been.

what is motivating this man? does he have it out for bush? doubtful, since he's GOP and bush-appointed.

perhaps he's motivated by the truth.

please, Lethal and Gymnut, tell me why i should dismiss his claims. do you know something i don't?

[LethalWolfe]

I'm not saying you should dismiss his claims. I'm saying that hindsight is 20/20. The "clues" are infinitely more obvious when you are trying to deconstruct an even than when you are trying to predict one. Nothing in the article screams, "gross incompetence." This guy just sounds like he's doing some Monday morning quaterbacking.

Anything is "preventable" once you see how it happens. WWII was preventable. JFK's assasination was preventable. Me slipping on an icey sidewalk and landing on my @ss was preventable.

The sheer number of threats and amount of info, both valid and not, that intelligence agencies have to sift thru is staggering. It's only a matter before something happens. Nothing is perfect. If someone, or a group of people, really want to commit an act of terrorism, and they have the ways and the means, they will. Just like if someone really wants to hack into a computer or rob a bank or kill the presidentl. Nothing is 100% safe. But for every 9/11 or OKC bombing how many acts or terror are prevented each year? I'd take an uneducated guess and say that US intelligence agencies "win/loss" ratio is extremely favorable.

If you want point to a singular "cause" of the failings that led to 9/11, IMO, it was the downsizing of the US intelligence agencies and the discontinued use of informants/human intelligence under the Clinton administration.


Lethal

[wwworry]

Wow. Bush can do anything and it's OK with you.

The thing is when a president is presented with information, as he was on Aug. 6th, he is supposed to come up with a plan to deal with that information, which he did not. Nor was there any real post-war Iraq plan. (Actually a year of post-war planniing was thrown out, including a list of places to protect from looting. It was thrown out because, for political reasons, they did not want people to know they had a plan.)

George Tenet, appointed by Clinton, warned the president that terrorists might hijack a plane to use as a missile. Appointees by the Clinton administration repeatedly tried to clue the Bush administration in on how bad Al Qeada was becoming and were ignored or thought of as being "obsessed" with Al Qeada. They could barely get a meeting.

No, nothing is 100% safe. But what if they had a plan in place. Maybe the second tower would still be standing, at least.

To flippanly remark that "hindsight is 20/20" ignores accountability, apologises for lack of planning and diminishes the lives of the many people who died that day. Will this president ever be held accountable for anything? Are the bribes of temporary tax cuts and debt passed on to future generations blinding us to real evasions of responsibility?

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by wwworry
Wow. Bush can do anything and it's OK with you.

The thing is when a president is presented with information, as he was on Aug. 6th, he is supposed to come up with a plan to deal with that information, which he did not. Nor was there any real post-war Iraq plan. (Actually a year of post-war planniing was thrown out, including a list of places to protect from looting. It was thrown out because, for political reasons, they did not want people to know they had a plan.)

George Tenet, appointed by Clinton, warned the president that terrorists might hijack a plane to use as a missile. Appointees by the Clinton administration repeatedly tried to clue the Bush administration in on how bad Al Qeada was becoming and were ignored or thought of as being "obsessed" with Al Qeada. They could barely get a meeting.

No, nothing is 100% safe. But what if they had a plan in place. Maybe the second tower would still be standing, at least.

To flippanly remark that "hindsight is 20/20" ignores accountability, apologises for lack of planning and diminishes the lives of the many people who died that day. Will this president ever be held accountable for anything? Are the bribes of temporary tax cuts and debt passed on to future generations blinding us to real evasions of responsibility?


Wow. Nice irrelevent comments in there. No wonder most threads in here go done in flames. It's also nice to know that you hold one person accountable for everything that happeneds. Makes a lot of sense. :rolleyes:

I don't see me defending Bush (care to point out where I was?) and I don't see how my saying "hindsigh is 20/20" is flippant or ignores accoutability. If you notice my comments were refering to the topic at hand (a strange approach to a discussion I know). I wasn't talking about tax cuts, or debt, or anything else. So please refrain from taking my comments out of context and applying them globaly in an attempt to portray me as something you hate so you can pat yourself on the back for laying into another Bush loving idiot.

Like I was saying, hindsight is 20/20. And, in hindsight, we see the warnings, and memo's, and trends that all led up to 9/11. And people are saying all those things should have been giant red flags. But at the time those warnings, and memo's and trends didn't look any more or less valid than the all the other hundreds of warnings, memo's, and trends that come across the desks of our intelligence agencies each day. I'm sure policies have changed, and more weight will be given to certian "red flags" than they were in the past. But the intelligence agencies will always be playing catch-up and then hope to cut the suspects/terrorits/enemy off at the pass. It's just the nature of the beast. Now that doesn't excuse gross incompetence, but in everything I've read I don't see an evidence of gross incompetence in this situation. It just looked like over worked and under staffed agencies felt other possible threats had more crediblity and therefore were a higher priority.

Many people were aware that there was a possiblity of planes being used as missles to crash into buildings. So what? Most people are aware that guns fire bullets and can be used to kill people. But both statements are so vague they are nearly useless. How many planes exist in the world and how many US/US-realted things could they be crashed into? Having a theory on the "how" doesn't help if you don't also have the "when" and the "where." The "who" is useful as well.

And, if you want to play "what if", how about, what if the Clinton administration captured Bin Laden when he was basically offered up on a silver plater?


Lethal

[mactastic]

Sorry Lethal, while I agree with you up till the end, there was no offer to hand bin Laden to the Americans on any kind of platter, silver or otherwise. That is a myth propogated by the right to discredit Clinton and by extension, all liberals. Search the forums, that facrication has been discredited time and again.

[Taft]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe

And, if you want to play "what if", how about, what if the Clinton administration captured Bin Laden when he was basically offered up on a silver plater?



AAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGG!!!!!

How many times do I have to post this??? Clinton was not offered bin Laden, contrary to the lies that conservative columnists might try to sell you. Here is a post that details the ways Clinton fought bin Laden during his tenure as President:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=491009#post491009

If you actually research the incident you are referring to, you would see that the offer was suspect at best and the offer was never to turn bin Laden over to the US. This is simply a lie propogated by the right.

Taft

[g5man]

Now that we are post Sept 11, what can we do to prevent another one?

People like to hear plans and how they will be carried out. Complaining about present plans will not be enough.

Other than bringing in the UN, I have not heard a single plan different than the one being carried out.

In fact most of congress voted for the homeland department and gave Bush the authority to carry out his plan regarding Iraq and future millitary actions.

Lets hear another plan. One that increases taxes (to increase the number of jobs here), decreases the millitary(since it is our millitary that makes us look like a bully), and starts to negotiate with terrorist and persuade them to leave us alone(because their demands are fairly reasonable convert to Islam or die)?

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
It's also nice to know that you hold one person accountable for everything that happeneds.

And before that you said:

If you want point to a singular "cause" of the failings that led to 9/11, IMO, it was the downsizing of the US intelligence agencies and the discontinued use of informants/human intelligence under the Clinton administration.

I'm not picking on you in particular, but you do seem to be hurling boomerangs. Careful there fella, you might hurt yourself.

[wwworry]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
But at the time those warnings, and memo's and trends didn't look any more or less valid than the all the other hundreds of warnings, memo's, and trends that come across the desks of our intelligence agencies each day.

apparently they did not, unless you think Bush planned it this way. Even I do not think that is true.

There were a lot of warnings. Clinton people told Bush people Al Qeada was up to no good. Tenent told Bush about the airline hijacking possibility. Nothing was done.

What's done is done.
It already happened anyway.
Oh well....

I guess I am silly to expect more than that, except I do expect more than that.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by g5man
Lets hear another plan. One that increases taxes (to increase the number of jobs here), decreases the millitary(since it is our millitary that makes us look like a bully), and starts to negotiate with terrorist and persuade them to leave us alone?

Why not?

Cutting taxes and increasing military spending while invading soveriegn nations doesn't seem to make us better off. Four years ago this country was in much better shape.

Not only have we kicked the hornet's nest, we've scared our allies away as well.

[g5man]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Why not?

Cutting taxes and increasing military spending while invading soveriegn nations doesn't seem to make us better off. Four years ago this country was in much better shape.

Not only have we kicked the hornet's nest, we've scared our allies away as well.

So you want to raise taxes while the economy is coming out of a recession, cut our military while we are at war, and negotiate with Bin Ladin to turn himself in?

I have shown that cutting taxes has helped kick start the economy. Increased millitary spending will assist us in defending our selfs. Without it we might be suffering the same fate as the Russians in Afghanistan. Bin Ladin and his group is not asking for negotiations but that we convert. If you want to become a Muslim go head.

We have not scared any ally. In fact they are asking us for contracts in Iraq and are now willing to forgive the debt they incurred to keep a dictator in power the last 12 years. Actully Russia is owed money from about 20 years ago since most of their military is from Russia.

Most Americans like the tax cuts and are better off. They like this president because they believe he will defend this country. We are more educated than ever (over 50% have college education)and own our own homes (over 64%) as well. This country is going up not down.

[mactastic]

Lol, you can't call repealing tax cuts that haven't taken effect yet "raising" taxes, unless of course you also want to call cutting taxes without a corresponding spending cut a spending increase.;)

[g5man]

Originally posted by mactastic
Lol, you can't call repealing tax cuts that haven't taken effect yet "raising" taxes, unless of course you also want to call cutting taxes without a corresponding spending cut a spending increase.;)

Well I know that Bush cut my taxes and the Democrats want to ensure they will go up when they take over. I don't know if I can make it any more simple than that.

By the way you forgot to write how you would justify cutting millitary spending and starting face to face talks to Bin Ladin. If that is not part of your plan than just say so.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by g5man
Well I know that Bush cut my taxes and the Democrats want to ensure they will go up when they take over. I don't know if I can make it any more simple than that.



I know that gw & co. are in the process of burying this country under a mountain of debt. gw has one goal in mind, to be re-elected and destroy this country's tradition of democratic welfare. The Democrats have consistently been more fiscally prudent than the Republicans could ever dream of. The Democrats are not interested in increasing taxes but ensuring that this country will remain economically viable for the rest of the century. Taxes are only one measure of the economic power of a country, more important is how indebted a country is and we top the list because of fiscally imprudent measures including the 1 trillion dollar tax cut implemented by gw. This country is going down according to this Report (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3528782,00.html) by the CBO.

By ALAN FRAM

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The government's three chief benefit programs are so huge and growing so fast that without raising taxes to historic highs, today's spending policies will probably be unsustainable in coming decades, the Congressional Budget Office said Friday.

In a look ahead at the next 50 years, Congress' nonpartisan fiscal analyst also concluded that the problem is so immense that economic growth alone will not be enough to solve it.

What's the point in a tax cut if the federal government is going to be bankrupt in a few years?

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by g5man
Well I know that Bush cut my taxes and the Democrats want to ensure they will go up when they take over. I don't know if I can make it any more simple than that.

By the way you forgot to write how you would justify cutting millitary spending and starting face to face talks to Bin Ladin. If that is not part of your plan than just say so.

That depends on how much you make. At least most of the Democrats do not want to repeal all of the tax cuts; they only want to target the top few percent.

The military budget could be cut in many ways and make our country safer. It does not help our security one bit to over pay Halliburton for services that should never have been contracted out in the first place. We could eliminate the crazy plans of the National Missile Defense program and spend the tens of billions of dollars on upgraded security where the real threat is - at our ports and points of entry. Spend half of that on the Coast Guard and we would be much safer. Should we go on about the billions wasted in programs that hurt our defense capacity instead of making it stronger? It is ironic that Republicans have railed against Democrats for years about "throwing money" at problems, and yet when it comes to the Defense Department the GOP hasn't met a pork barrel project it doesn't like.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Ugg
What's the point in a tax cut if the federal government is going to be bankrupt in a few years?

The Federal government never goes bankrupt so long as they spend borrowed money. What happens eventually is some combination of: (1) the credit markets are suffocated leading to high interest rates and economic stagnation, (2) inflation is touched off, leading to high interest rates and economic stagnation, and (3) a monetary crisis ensues, leading to disinvestment, inflation and economic stagnation. Welcome to the new Republican vision for the United States.

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by mactastic
Sorry Lethal, while I agree with you up till the end, there was no offer to hand bin Laden to the Americans on any kind of platter, silver or otherwise. That is a myth propogated by the right to discredit Clinton and by extension, all liberals. Search the forums, that facrication has been discredited time and again.


Wasn't aware of that. Thanx for correcting me.


IJ,
I'm not being a hypocrit. I said "Clinton administration" and not just "Clinton" for a reason.


wwworry,
If you tell me Clinton's people told Bush that on Sept 11th 2001 4 passenger airliners would be hijacked and used as missles against targets in NY and DC, or if you tell me that Clinton's people told Bush the names of all the hijackers and said, "we are confident these guys are going to attempt to hijack airlines in the near future" that would be one thing. But you are not. You are telling me that Clinton's people came to Bush and said "Al Qeada is up to no good. They might hijack a plane and ram it into a building." That, by itself, is pretty useless info. No who, when, where and a vague how. Please tell me, from that information, how you would divine 9/11. You would probably turn to your intel guys and say,"look into this." But guess what, your intel guys are swamped. They've been downsized to the point of counter productivity. They do not have the man power nor the resources anymore to get the job down. And this warning came to Bush barely a month before the attacks. In a field measured in years Bush, as it turns out, had a month to uncover a very well planned, very thought out plot that was years in the making.


Lethal

[zimv20]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe

If you tell me Clinton's people told Bush that on Sept 11th 2001 4 passenger airliners would be hijacked and used as missles against targets in NY and DC, or if you tell me that Clinton's people told Bush the names of all the hijackers and said, "we are confident these guys are going to attempt to hijack airlines in the near future" that would be one thing. But you are not. You are telling me that Clinton's people came to Bush and said "Al Qeada is up to no good. They might hijack a plane and ram it into a building." That, by itself, is pretty useless info. No who, when, where and a vague how.

i'm certain it's somewhere in between.

i'm willing to bet that, should all the info known become public, you'd come to a different conclusion.

that's just a gut feeling.

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by zimv20
i'm certain it's somewhere in between.

i'm willing to bet that, should all the info known become public, you'd come to a different conclusion.

that's just a gut feeling.

I'm sure it was too, but was it enough? Obviously there were many "unknowns" otherwise the hijackers would have been picked up already. And, given the "unknowns" was, what turned out to be a month, enough time to fill in all the blanks?


Lethal

[wwworry]

given that information I would expect some sort of plan, or the beginnings of a plan.

Something like a homeland security dept., which , in fact, was proposed before 9/11 and nixed by John Ashcroft. I don't think that is too much to ask.

You blame Clinton for everything but here is a situation where Bush was pretty much told what was going to happen, people propose a method of planning for such situations and Bush does nothing. There is a severe lack of foresight in this administration but I'll stick to this one example.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by wwworry
Bush was pretty much told what was going to happen, people propose a method of planning for such situations and Bush does nothing.

Not true.

He was busy setting a new world record for Presidential vacation time.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
I'm sure it was too, but was it enough? Obviously there were many "unknowns" otherwise the hijackers would have been picked up already. And, given the "unknowns" was, what turned out to be a month, enough time to fill in all the blanks?


that's nothing i can answer from a "yes, because of X, Y, Z" perspective.

it's my read on Kean's statement. when the bush-appointed head of the commission says it could have been prevented, that's code for "wow, someone REALLY ****ed up."

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by zimv20
that's nothing i can answer from a "yes, because of X, Y, Z" perspective.

it's my read on Kean's statement. when the bush-appointed head of the commission says it could have been prevented, that's code for "wow, someone REALLY ****ed up."

One thing is clear, the Democratic nominee would be crazy not to attempt to nail Bush down on this report. What is he going to do to those it names as ignoring the warnings? Will he have to take any personal responsibility for not heeding those warnings? If I'm one the Democratic candidates I've getting a team together to pour over this report.

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by wwworry
given that information I would expect some sort of plan, or the beginnings of a plan.

Something like a homeland security dept., which , in fact, was proposed before 9/11 and nixed by John Ashcroft. I don't think that is too much to ask.

You blame Clinton for everything but here is a situation where Bush was pretty much told what was going to happen, people propose a method of planning for such situations and Bush does nothing. There is a severe lack of foresight in this administration but I'll stick to this one example.


I agree the current administration is showing a trend for lack of foresight, but I don't think

zimv20,
Of course he's going say it was preventable. He's also probably going to single out "key people' that "dropped the ball" and, deservinly or not, end their careers. Someone has to be responsible right? Someone has to catch the fall out. He can't come up w/a report that says, "We did everything right, but they still out-smarted us." What kind of message would that send to the American people and to the world? With something of this magnitude you have to find people to blame, eliminate them, and then tell everyone the problem is solved because the guys who screwed up are gone. I'm sure new policies have been put in place, but it still comes down to just manpower, IMO.

wwworry,
So Bush was "pretty much told" what was going to happend? Bush was told the specific date? The specific targets? The names of the hijackers? The flights that were going to be hijacked? What was Bush told?

I'm still confused as to why you are laying entire blame for 9/11 on Bush's door step when most this plot, sans 9/11, took place under someone else's watch. If Clinton's crew, who spent years watching Al Qeada, couldn't unearth this plot what miracle do you expect Bush's crew to do in a month? Even if on Aug 7th Bush said "okay, we are going to form a Homeland Security Dept." It probably would have taken a month just to get the personal together to from the office, let alone get things up and running to a functional and effective level. It's like blameing the lost football game on the QB you put in w/ the score 28-0 and 2 minutes left on the clock.

I'm not blaming Clinton entirely for the whole thing. I'm not blaming anyone entirely for the whole thing. I'm just saying that, IMO, the biggest mistake made on the US side was the downsizing of the US intel community which, as a matter of fact, happened during the Clinton Adminstration. And this downsizing was probably the result of miscalculating future threats and an over reliance on technology (and quite possibly someone's moral obejction to paying the scum of the earth for info). Much like the post WWII military thought dog fighting was a thing of the past w/the advent of the nuclear bomb. Then comes Vietnam, a low-tech war by comparsion to what the military had planned for, and our fly boys get that @sses handed to them because they neither have the training nor equipment for close-range air-to-air combat. D'oh. I guess, in the end, my point is that if you have to over simplify the situation and pick someone to lay blame on Bush shouldn't be on the top of the list.


Lethal

[wwworry]

When did I ever balme the whole thing on Bush? He did not fly the airplanes.

I will repeat. He was told by Clinton admin officials that this might happen. Yes, ex-clinton admin officials. So you blame the Clinton admin but they are the ones who were pushing for action about this information. Bush was the one who did nothing with the information.

You are the one apologizing for the one (Bush) who did nothing with information and blaming the people who were pushing for action on this information. It makes no sence.

Finally you admit that Bush has a history of not planning for readily available senarios. Isn't this bad?

Yes, hindsight is 20/20. But planning and foresight are the things that mark a competent administration. You and people like you never admit the mistakes of this president. You throw away accountability and responsibility because you like the policies of the people in power.

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by wwworry
When did I ever balme the whole thing on Bush? He did not fly the airplanes.

At no point in this thread have you placed the blame on anyone but Bush.


I will repeat. He was told by Clinton admin officials that this might happen. Yes, ex-clinton admin officials. So you blame the Clinton admin but they are the ones who were pushing for action about this information. Bush was the one who did nothing with the information.

Again, how much info did Bush get, and prior to Bush taking office US intel had years to uncover this plot. Why do you expect the Bush administration to do in a month what the Clinton Administration couldn't do over a period of years?

You are the one apologizing for the one (Bush) who did nothing with information and blaming the people who were pushing for action on this information. It makes no sence.

I'm not apologizig for anyone. I'm being realistic. Again, Bush had a month. Clinton had years. Neither administration uncovered the plot. Why are you hell bent on blaming Bush?

Finally you admit that Bush has a history of not planning for readily available senarios. Isn't this bad?

Finally admit? You make it sound like I was disagreeing w/you at one point.

Yes, hindsight is 20/20. But planning and foresight are the things that mark a competent administration. You and people like you never admit the mistakes of this president. You throw away accountability and responsibility because you like the policies of the people in power.

People like me? Ha! That's funny. You know obviously know jack about me and my views. How about you? Because, in this situation, I'm not blaming Bush you assume I like Bush and blindly follow his policies/decissions. :rolleyes:
If I didn't know better I'd say you were one of those people who, when they don't like the people in power, will find any excuse b*tch about them and will attack anyone they think agrees with those in power.

Mactastic agrees w/me. Zimv20 agrees w/me to a point (I think). So, just out of curiousity, why aren't you trying to paint them as Bush-loving zombies like you are me?


Lethal

[zimv20]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Why do you expect the Bush administration to do in a month what the Clinton Administration couldn't do over a period of years?


to be fair, the clinton administration turned over all their al qaeda stuff in january 2001 (though, iirc, the transfer of knowledge started before that).

i don't have one handy, but do you recall seeing any of the reports of those clinton officials complaining how the bush officials weren't at all interested in the terrorism stuff? if you'll recall, bush was all about domestic policies for the first 8 months of his adminstration.


Zimv20 agrees w/me to a point (I think).

i want to see what's in the report.

[wwworry]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
At no point in this thread have you placed the blame on anyone but Bush.

How many times do I have to say: He got the information - he did nothing. But OK, Bush himself did not hikack the airliners. He is not at fault for hijacking the airliners. Now are you happy?


Again, how much info did Bush get, and prior to Bush taking office US intel had years to uncover this plot. Why do you expect the Bush administration to do in a month what the Clinton Administration couldn't do over a period of years?

Clinton appointees, George Tenet, informed Bush of the POSSIBILITY (capitalized to make you happy) of this sort of attack. Bush did nothing. He was on a month long vacation.

I'm not apologizig for anyone. I'm being realistic. Again, Bush had a month. Clinton had years. Neither administration uncovered the plot. Why are you hell bent on blaming Bush?

If Clinton had years then Bush had 9 months and people telling him that such a thing might happen. No information has come up that this was at all known about during the Clinton administration. You could pat yourself on the back that the Bush administration officials, Tenet, partially uncovered the plot. But nothing was done.

Finally admit? You make it sound like I was disagreeing w/you at one point.

Mactastic agrees w/me. Zimv20 agrees w/me to a point (I think). So, just out of curiousity, why aren't you trying to paint them as Bush-loving zombies like you are me?

Lethal
Maybe they are Bush loving zombies.

All I ever said is that he could have come up with a plan or even planned to come up with a plan and this is what we want a president to do.

[Sun Baked]

The shuttle accident WAS preventable also, but it happened.

It's all in how the administrations, employees, and key individuals take "current" information and project it into the future.

Heck they could have continued to used freon in the chemical composition of the foam, and not had the problem.

But it wouldn't have prevented something else from going wrong. Heck the same thing "could" have happed with the old foam recipe.

But the tree huggers would have gone nuts over the space industry's continued dumping of freon into the air.

---

A plane being piloted into the side of a building sounds preventable...

But would people have liked the current air travel restriction without ever having seen a 9/11 style attack?

Probably not.

But how were they able to extrapolate the need for strict flight regulations, when the previous World Trade Center attacks used truck bombs?

Before 9/11 a truck bomb attack was NOT EQUAL to intercontinental airliner full of fuel.

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by wwworry
How many times do I have to say: He got the information - he did nothing. But OK, Bush himself did not hikack the airliners. He is not at fault for hijacking the airliners. Now are you happy?

Clinton appointees, George Tenet, informed Bush of the POSSIBILITY (capitalized to make you happy) of this sort of attack. Bush did nothing. He was on a month long vacation.

If Clinton had years then Bush had 9 months and people telling him that such a thing might happen. No information has come up that this was at all known about during the Clinton administration. You could pat yourself on the back that the Bush administration officials, Tenet, partially uncovered the plot. But nothing was done.

Maybe they are Bush loving zombies.

All I ever said is that he could have come up with a plan or even planned to come up with a plan and this is what we want a president to do.

How do you know, for a fact, that Bush never came up w/a plan, or never even planned to come up w/a plan?

US intel under both the Clinton and Bush administrations failed to stop Al Qeada. Besides using the "you touched it last" defense I fail to see how the Bush administration's failure to prevent the attacks is any worse than the Clinton administration's failure to prevent the attacks.

Again, we come back the "Bush was informed of the possiblity of this type of attack" angle. Why do you keep bringing it up like it some sort of missing link? Knowing something is possible and knowing when, where, and how it will happen as well as who will pull it off are two very, very, very different things. Is this a difficult concept for you to understand? Do you think that the possible future attack by Al Qeada was the only "possible future attack" threat the US intel organizations had on their plate? They sift thru dozens, if not hundreds, of threats to the US or US interests world wide each day. It takes man power and resources to throughly follow up on each of those threats in a timely manor and the US intel community was severely lacking in both of those areas.


Lethal

[wwworry]

I know for a fact that there was no plan on 9/11 because of the way 9/11 unfolded. I challenge you or anyone else to show me what the plan was on that day.

So maybe he planned to have a plan but there is no mention of it anywhere.

I think your problem is you read the title of this thread which has the word "preventable" in it and in your mind put it in what I am saying. All along I have said that Bush was informed of the possible hijacking/attack, which is true, and that Bush did not plan for it, which is also true. There is a lot one could do with that information, certainly more than the nothing that was done.

Things could have been done even without knowing the exact mindset of the attackers, like a plan for instance.... Isn't that what he is paid to do?

Why do you defend the lack of planning? Or maybe you could tell me what the plan was on that day.

[Juventuz]

Originally posted by wwworry
I think your problem is you read the title of this thread which has the word "preventable" in it and in your mind put it in what I am saying. All along I have said that Bush was informed of the possible hijacking/attack, which is true, and that Bush did not plan for it, which is also true. There is a lot one could do with that information, certainly more than the nothing that was done.

Things could have been done even without knowing the exact mindset of the attackers, like a plan for instance.... Isn't that what he is paid to do?

Why do you defend the lack of planning? Or maybe you could tell me what the plan was on that day.

I'm not the biggest fan of Bush, but c'mon....

You claim that he could have planned something, well why didn't Clinton. You make it abundantly clear that Clinton was aware of the potential of a 9/11 style strike yet he had no plan. What did Clinton do about it? Clinton had eight years to do something, yet nothing was done. Isn't that what he was paid to do?

[wwworry]

Originally posted by Juventuz
I'm not the biggest fan of Bush, but c'mon....

You claim that he could have planned something, well why didn't Clinton. You make it abundantly clear that Clinton was aware of the potential of a 9/11 style strike yet he had no plan. What did Clinton do about it? Clinton had eight years to do something, yet nothing was done. Isn't that what he was paid to do?

I said Clinton appointees told Bush while Bush was in office. There are no reports that Clinton was told that Al Qeada was planning to hijack planes. So no and never did I say that Clinton was aware of the hikacking senario.

(It's really pretty simple what I am saying. I wish people would read the simple sentences I wrote.)

On August 6th 2001 Bush was told by George Tenent that Al Qeada was planning to hijack planes for terrorist attack. Bush did nothing. He could have had a plan. Never did I say that if he had a plan it would have even worked.

I don't understand why people are even against planning. It seems that lack of planning has somehow become a virtue. OK, now I am on your side:

Planning is bad.

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by wwworry
I know for a fact that there was no plan on 9/11 because of the way 9/11 unfolded. I challenge you or anyone else to show me what the plan was on that day.

So maybe he planned to have a plan but there is no mention of it anywhere.

I think your problem is you read the title of this thread which has the word "preventable" in it and in your mind put it in what I am saying. All along I have said that Bush was informed of the possible hijacking/attack, which is true, and that Bush did not plan for it, which is also true. There is a lot one could do with that information, certainly more than the nothing that was done.

Things could have been done even without knowing the exact mindset of the attackers, like a plan for instance.... Isn't that what he is paid to do?

Why do you defend the lack of planning? Or maybe you could tell me what the plan was on that day.

Is the plan you are calling for a plan to prevent the attacks or a plan of what to do if/when the attacks happen?


Lethal

[Sayhey]

I will have to see what the report says, but I'm interested if any of the folks who will undoubtedly be criticized in it will own up to any mistakes at all.

I think there are an awful lot of folks who deserve blame about the mishandling of terrorism from Islamic fundamentalists. We could go back to the days of British colonialism, but in a quest for brevity I'll start with the Reagan/Bush administration and work forward. There is a lot of stupid, immoral, and corrupt actions by every President since then.

In an effort to payback the Soviets for helping supply the Vietnamese we poured billions of dollars into the hands of some of the world's most reactionary political forces. Not only did we give them money, but we gave them up-to-date weaponry, trained them in all kinds of guerilla war tactics and set them loose without any accountability or attempt to win them to democratic ways of thinking. That was the Reagan/Bush administrations approach to world affairs.

Bush/Qualye had a similar point of view. After we gave all the weapons and training to the mujahideen in Afghanistan we abandoned all involvement towards building a cohesive society there because the administration was ideologically opposed to "nation building." After giving a wink and a nod to our dear friend Saddam Hussein we were shocked that he invaded Kuwait. This Bush administration had the sense however (whatever you think of the first Gulf war) to not follow the defeat of Iraqi forces with an occupation of Baghdad. The stationing of US troops in the holy land of Saudi Arabia, of course started at this time without a clue on the part of the first Bushies that it might cause a problem with fundamentalists.

We continued to have our own favorite fundamentalists, particularly the ones in power in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates. As long as a regime was stable, didn't give too much money to groups we didn't like, and kept the oil tap running all was good with the strategic vision of Bush and Baker.

Clinton took a while to catch on to the threat that radical Islamic fundamentalism meant for the world. He did catch on though and tried to focus on this menace. He spent an enormous amount of political capital on trying to resolve the main wellspring of hatred toward the west in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict only to fail spectacularly at the very end of his second term (Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount was calculated to sabotage any peace and Arafat probably held out for a better deal than he could have gotten.)

Clinton did target bin Laden and had some success against the building threat of al Qaeda. He did not move fast or aggressive enough in part because of domestic concerns. He also continued the ill-advised basing scheme in Saudi Arabia and the close and uncritical ties with these regimes.

Bush jr. ignored the middle east, the Palestinian issue in particular, for most of the early part of his presidency. He ignored the Hart/Rudman recommendations. He ignored the Clinton administrations warnings. After 9/11 he had the world's backing and rightly moved swiftly against the Taleban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Now, however, he has squander the opportunity to have a unified global response to terrorism, particularly in the form of al Qaeda, in order to further US geopolitical aims and settle scores in Iraq. In the process he has provided the Islamic fundamentalists with their greatest recruiting tool.

I'm sure I've left out a lot, but yes hindsight is 20-20. Some of us, however, have been condemning these policies for decades. It would be refreshing if for once an administration just owned up and said this is wrong and we must change. Georgie jr. is too busy getting reelected to even consider it.

Sorry, I missed on the brevity part.

[Sun Baked]

Did anybody read the Battlefield Chicago? (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20031222.html) on Findlaw's Legal Commentary...

At least the court is trying to uphold people's rights -- after the capture of an enemy combatant in Chicago. :rolleyes:

Of course the government will probably stonewall and ignore the decision for as long as possible.

Detained U.S. Citizen Helps Terror Fight (http://news.findlaw.com/ap_stories/other/1110/12-16-2003/20031216101501_15.html)

Senior Justice Department officials, briefing reporters on condition of anonymity, said Padilla eventually will be allowed a lawyer but that a delay was essential because of national security concerns.

Padilla's value as an intelligence source, one official said, "would potentially be hampered and jeopardized by access to counsel."

Padilla, a former Chicago gang member, is accused of plotting with al-Qaida operatives to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb." He was arrested in May 2002 at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport on a flight from Pakistan and was designated an enemy combatant a month later.This is how we are treating some of the "terrorists" right now, but before 9/11 -- What would have happened?

Sure they were planning on doing it -- and taking "flying lessons."

But the weapons were box cutters, which were not seen as significant airline threats prior to 9/11.

Some of the firearms freaks were bigger threats than these guys before these idiots boarded the planes on 9/11. Though they were here on expired Visas -- so those people could have been deported.

[Neserk]

Hindsight is actually not 20/20. Someday I'll elaborate.

[Neserk]

Originally posted by g5man
[B]Now that we are post Sept 11, what can we do to prevent another one?



Get rid of Bush. Seems obvious to me.

[Neserk]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
"Al Qeada is up to no good. They might hijack a plane and ram it into a building." That, by itself, is pretty useless info. No who, when, where and a vague how. Please tell me, from that information, how you would divine 9/11.

*I* knew at the tender age of 18 that sharp instruments should no be allowed on airliners. *I* knew that someone would use one to hijack an airplane. It is common sense. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that sharp instruments + planes = bad news.


Just because they couldn't know exactly what was going to happen doesn't mean they couldn't put forth the extra effort to protect us!

They also had info I didn't have. Like questionable people taking flying lessons. It is their *job* to divine!

[zimv20]

the NYT did a Q&A w/ mr. kean, here (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/04/magazine/04QUESTIONS.html)



You seem to believe that 9/11 did not have to happen.


Yes, there is a good chance that 9/11 could have been prevented by any number of people along the way. Everybody pretty well agrees our intelligence agencies were not set up to deal with domestic terrorism. Everybody had been set up to fight the cold war. They were not ready for an internal attack.


Did anyone in the Bush administration have any idea that an attack was being planned?


That is why we are looking at the internal papers. I can't talk about what's classified. President's daily briefings are classified. If I told you what was in them, I would go to jail.