9/11 Chair: Attack Was Preventable

[shanek]

No wonder Bush is now refusing to give them what they need to continue the investigation...

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

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.

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.

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.

[Gem]

I'd like to make a political prediction. I do not claim this is paranormal, but simply out of observation of US politics.

NOTHING is going to happen about this. At worst, the presidential canditates will bash Bush on it, but that's it.

Gem

[BTox]

Originally posted by shanek
No wonder Bush is now refusing to give them what they need to continue the investigation...




FYI, Tom Kean claims today he was misrepresented by the CBS story. CBS wouldn't be the least bit biased, here, would they?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The head of an independent panel investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington said on Thursday that a number of "mistakes" allowed the hijackings to occur but top people in government were not necessarily to blame.

"We have no evidence that anybody ... high in the Clinton administration or high in the Bush administration did anything wrong," Thomas Kean, chairman of the so called 9/11 commission, said on ABC's "Nightline."



kean story 12/19 (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&ncid=584&e=13&u=/nm/20031219/pl_nm/security_attack_commission_dc)

[fishbob]

"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. 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."

Read these sentences a few times, if you can without hurting your brain.

My brain is already mushy. What did Kean actually say?

[shanek]

Originally posted by BTox
FYI, Tom Kean claims today he was misrepresented by the CBS story. CBS wouldn't be the least bit biased, here, would they?

That isn't what the CBS story said, though. They said that his claim was that we SHOULD and WILL know whether or not top officials were to blame, not that they necessarily were.

[Ladewig]

the commission has navigated a political landmine, threatening a subpoena to gain access to the president's top-secret daily briefs.

"Threatening" is probably the right word to use here because with nothing more than subpoena power, it will be only a threat.

[Zero]

Originally posted by BTox


FYI, Tom Kean claims today he was misrepresented by the CBS story. CBS wouldn't be the least bit biased, here, would they?



kean story 12/19 (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&ncid=584&e=13&u=/nm/20031219/pl_nm/security_attack_commission_dc) No, they wouldn't be.

[WildCat]

Of course it was preventable! With the benefit of hindsight, everything is preventable. This reminds me of that Brett Favre commercial, where he gets to play "Monday morning quarterback" to road workers ("I wouldn't have dug into that water main"), shoppers (after the bag breaks, "I would have double bagged that"), etc.

Shanek, you would, IMO, have been highly critical of the gov't for restricting freedoms prior to 9/11 if they had totally cracked down on airport security, legal immigrants (many of the hijackers were in the country legally), etc.

It's always easy to see where the pieces of the puzzle go once it's completed.

[shanek]

Originally posted by WildCat
Shanek, you would, IMO, have been highly critical of the gov't for restricting freedoms prior to 9/11 if they had totally cracked down on airport security, legal immigrants (many of the hijackers were in the country legally), etc.

You don't have to restrict freedoms to prevent a tragedy like that.

[Zero]

Let's be realistic for a moment:

If terrorists decide to attack, there is NOTHING we can do about it. If there were a real terrorist threat to the U.S., we would have seen it by now. Yes, we can bitch and moan about how Bush dropped the ball on terrorism, and how the FBI, CIA, and other agencies were incompetent in their work. However, even if the 9-11 attack had been prevented, if there were a real terrorist threat in the U.S. , they could hit us whenever they wanted, and no amount of government spending or intervention could stop it.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Zero

Yes, we can bitch and moan about how Bush dropped the ball on terrorism, and how the FBI, CIA, and other agencies were incompetent in their work.

Yes, that would be silly, considering how Clinton dropped the ball on terrorism and let the FBI, CIA and military flounder.

[Zero]

Originally posted by BTox


Yes, that would be silly, considering how Clinton dropped the ball on terrorism and let the FBI, CIA and military flounder. You can tell that lie too, if it makes you feel better. Credible critics of Clinton generally say he was TOO focused on bin Laden, actually.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Zero
You can tell that lie too, if it makes you feel better.

No, that's a fact. Only a lie in your mind.



Originally posted by Zero
Credible critics of Clinton generally say he was TOO focused on bin Laden, actually.

Very funny! Please tell us who these "credible critics"are.

[Zero]

Whatever, Btox, very little of what you post is based in reality, a fact I am growing used to.

[Troll]

Originally posted by shanek


You don't have to restrict freedoms to prevent a tragedy like that.

No, you don't. You merely have to be the previous president and do much more than what he did to prevent it. He was offered to us on a silver plate for pity's sake

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zero
You can tell that lie too, if it makes you feel better. Credible critics of Clinton generally say he was TOO focused on bin Laden, actually.

And they would be who? Evidence to the contrary of common knowledge?

[WildCat]

Originally posted by shanek


You don't have to restrict freedoms to prevent a tragedy like that.
Maybe you wouldn't have to, but it would be the likely response.

And would all of you opposing the war in Iraq because Saddam might have had WMD's have supported a pre-emptive invasion of Afghanistan (say, by the Clinton admin. shortly after the USS Cole attack) because the Taliban might have been allowing Al Queda to plan terrorist attacks in the US?