Reptile & Amphibian Forums

9/11 Chair: Attack Was Preventable

NEW YORK, Dec. 17, 2003

(CBS) 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.

Why did you drag Clinton into it.
I thought it was Bush's fault.
Bush can not get credit for nothing.
-----
RicK Denmon

Ball Boutique,Inc.

wtf are you talking about?

Let's see, a FBI report that said this was a "possibility" in 1991. No action was taken on this report for 9 years before Bush jr. was elected and now we are going to try and blame it on him and forget about the previous 9 years when nothing was done? When the report was far more relevant because it was "fresh"? Do you think that in the short time Bush had been president, from his election until 9/11, that he had even been told of an FBI report that was 9 years old? What if the report was 50 old? Should he have been informed of that also, and blamed if nothing had been done by previous administrations? Do you think every incoming president is briefed on every report by every government agency in history? A 100 gigabyte hard drive couldn't hold that much info. and a person couldn't possibly learn of all of the info. in those reports in a few short months.

Let's put the blame where it is due. Either on Bush sr. or Clinton (depending on what the exact date of the report was). If is was early 91, then it would be Bush sr., if it was very late 91, then probably Clinton.

And since it could have been Bush sr., I guess we can assume that Bush jr. is guilty since they are related, right? Just like we can assume Gore, and most liberals for that matter, is a racist since his father, and some other democrats, was one of the main opponents to the equal rights amendment that the republicans were pushing for?

I agree that if the same people that were in charge of security in 1991 are still around, and they did nothing about this, they should be dealt with, fired, etc. But Condoleeza and Bush? I don't think so. Bush was too busy trying to fix the Clinton economy to worry about 9 year old reports of "possibilities" that hadn't presented themselves since then. Thank goodness he was able to that, and the economy is off and running again.

Rodney

Your pretty hilarious rodney - Bush trying to "fix" the Clinton economy?? Ha!! Thats bizarre even from you.

And you missed the point entirely of the CBS article - nothing new about that eh?

Clicnton told Bush that Ossama was the single biggest threat to the US - Bush did nothing. This republican led commision will detail much of this.

Just curious - where did you get that bit about Gore's dad trying to stop the republican equal rights efforts? Your a curious guy.

Joe

Well, Joe, I have some stocks, and I do follow the stock market a bit. The market was consistently falling for about 4-5 months prior to Bush being elected. And most people who invest could tell you this, and that it takes a few months of (bad sales/bad economy) for the stock market prices to reflect that fact. So the economy had been in a downward spiral for at least 1/2 a year, and most likely closer to a full year before Bush was even in the picture. It takes quite a while to change a huge economy like ours and a trend like that. On top of that, many financial analysts believe the .com bubble was created by relaxed accounting rules which could be blamed on the Clinton administration. Same for the banking scandals. And even if they weren't blamed on Clinton, they surely couldn't be blamed on Bush because it took a number of years for that problem to develop, and he had just taken office. And 9/11 was the big problem with the failing economy. It could easily be argued that Bush's fight against terrorism prevented another attack which would have devastated the economy. Also, 9/11 was being planned while Clinton was in office. Even if Gore had won the election, you couldn't blame the 9/11 attack on Gore--but there is a good argument that it was caused by Clinton not picking up Bin Laden when he had the chance, or Clinton gutting the intelligence agencies, military budgets.

As for Gore's dad, here's an article that states exactly what I did.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/junkie/archive/junkie042800.htm

Notice the part about it being suicide for a liberal to support the amendment. Think that was because so many liberal voters supported it, or because so many conservatives did? Also notice the part about him being involved in a filibuster of the bill. Think he wasn't passionate about his (and the left's) position on this bill to be involved in a filibuster? If he was mildly against it, why not just vote no on it?

I'm sorry it was the washington post that ran the article and I couldn't point you to FOX NEWS or someone else reputable.

I'm glad you think I'm funny! However, I feel sad for you and the future of this country when the reasons you, and some others on the far left, think I am funny is because you have been so brainwashed by the left that you ignore facts and spout unsubstantiated propaganda, thus making facts look ridiculous to your liberally warped mind!

By the way, I am familiar with the 9/11 investigation and the interview in which Thomas Kean stated that there is no evidence that any senior members of either Clinton's or Bush's administration are at fault. I was just using logic to argue against a ridiculous, biased article that said very little and tried to smear the Bush administration through association. Why did this article ignore Thomas Kean's statement that there is no evidence that anyone senior is at fault? Think it could be that liberal bias in the press popping up again? Leaving out what is probably the most important fact, in Kean's interview, isn't good reporting--but then again, what good liberal wants the public to know the facts? OH, I KNOW, FORGETTING THAT FACT WAS JUST ANOTHER LITTLE MISTAKE! Now you have me laughing!

Rodney

rodney -

Anyone who wants to verify rodney's inaccurate market analysis can simply go to http://finance.yahoo.com and take a look at the market graphs for the past 5 years. The market was booming almost to the day Bush was elected. So to state Bush has been working to fix the Clinton economy, the best economy the US has seen for decades, is simply laughable.

Here is a link that clearly shows the markets over the past 5 years. Notice what happens toward the end of the year 2000!

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=^DJI&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=&c=^SPX&c=^IXIC&c=^DJI

Your assertion that Gore's father was a racist is equally comical. Even the article you reference states he was overwhelmingly supported by blacks in Tennessee and was broadly liberal on social matters. His vote against the Civil Rights Bill was, as the article states, a compromise he made to avoid being beat during the upcoming election. Why do you insist on twisting these facts? Racist? C'mon rodney...

Joe

My other (long) post below, and the graphs, speak for themselves.

Why do you consistently present facts that endorse what I am saying?

You would debate better if your facts were in opposition to me!

Rodney

If you look at the Dow it was coming down in 00 to 01 Let us see what it is @ election time. BTW all markets go up and down. I do not blame one nor the other for economy. I believe JFK did a lot for our tax cuts .... maybe the biggest in history. Before 1913 we never had the income tax. Now look at!!! Pork on both sides.
-----
RicK Denmon

Ball Boutique,Inc.

You seem to be attempting to mislead people again rodney.
You stated that:

"Kean stated that there is no evidence that any senior members of either Clinton's or Bush's administration are at fault."

But here's what actually was said:

"Fox News quotes Kean as saying that any conclusions about the performance of high-level officials "will be reached when we are finished with our job, not now."

So you jumped the gun a wee bit, huh?
Keep in mind too that the White House refused to release daily briefings to the Committee until threatened with a subpoena. Not typically the behaviour of people with nothing to hide.

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2003/december/1219_kean_comments.shtml

HI Joe,

ME THINKS THOU SHOULD TAKE A REMEDIAL COURSE IN GRAPH READING!

Your reference to the stock market clearly shows that the market was in a major decline for about 7 months prior to Bush taking office. Since Bush was elected in November and inaugurated on Jan., 20th 2001, the NASDAQ INDEX (IXIC) had been taking a major hit for quite some time. I noticed this dramatic decline in my holdings in the middle of 2000, many months prior to the election. That hit was starting to turn around about 2 months after Bush took office, also noticed in my holding. Also notice the 9/11 hit the market took, and the steady gains the market has been making for the past 10 months in a row. Remember all the news stories about the most dramatic climb in the economy (last month) in 24 years? Remember how Reagan's tax cuts did the same thing? Why do democrats think that taking away as much money as possible from working people stimulates them to work? Why do democrats think that giving as many benefits as possible to non-working people will stimulate them to find a job? If I was lazy, and the govt. would take care of me, I wouldn't work as hard as I do raising animals! I'd probably even take a day off once in a while!

A wise man once said, "If you want more of something, subsidize it. If you want less of something, tax it!"

As for the Kean interview, I saw it and he clearly stated, that to this date, there is no evidence of any wrong doing by any senior personnel in either administration.

I am perfectly happy to wait for the investigation to conclude and those results to be published, - as it should be. I am not happy with all the supposition, that is in direct conflict with his statements. I am also not happy, with his statements that make the article quoted in the beginning of the thread look like total nonsense, being "left out". Why are you trying to indicate that there was wrong doing when you don't know the outcome of the investigation any more than I do? I am amazed how many liberal psychics there are, that spend every waking hour, figuring out how to bash Bush because of what he is going to do. Why not wait and see what happens? Because too many of your Bush bashing arguments fall by the way side once there is evidence? Because you can't influence the public as efficiently without all the supposition?

As for Gore's father, I was just making a point that the Equal Rights Amendment was written, sponsored, and supported by republicans and opposed by democrats (in general). There obviously were a few democrats that voted for it, allowing it to pass. Stating time and again that republicans are racist and democrats aren't is simply not true historically. Since I hear so many liberal talk show hosts complaining about how any elected officials' father's positions indicate that must be how their sons think, I just though I would use this liberal nonsensical logic against one of their own, using facts. Since it could be argued that the 1991 FBI report could be blamed on Bush sr's. administration not taking action. I figured you would probably blame that on Bush jr. too!

Quick poll to anyone reading this thread. Who here can read graphs and tell me that I am right? Who thinks Joe is correct? Please look at the graphs, and remember the dates, before you answer.

Thanks,
Rodney

Rodney –

I’ll let people make up their own minds about just when the economy tanked – but it looks very clear to me that it did so just about exactly the same time Bush was stealing the election from the winner of the popular vote! Now of course, I don’t actually believe that GW Bush’s election drove the economy into the dink, but I’m sure more than a few investors were concerned about his proposed massive spending and tax cuts. I heard Bush referred to as the tax-cut and spend president – a new political animal all together!

But your claim that Bush was trying to “fix the Clinton” economic mess is a comment that makes you look silly.

Why do democrats think that giving as many benefits as possible to non-working people will stimulate them to find a job?

Um, you have heard of Clinton’s Welfare to Work Program? Clinton pretty much taught the republicans how to play the game with this one. The republican leaders where having a cow as Clinton lifted their “big cause” out from under their nose. Its too bad the only thing Bush seems to have stolen out from under the Dems has been the reputation for massive budget deficits, uncontrolled government spending and pandering to special interests!

As for the Kean interview, I saw it and he clearly stated, that to this date, there is no evidence of any wrong doing by any senior personnel in either administration.

So your saying Fox News got it wrong? Amazing Rodney – you’ll deny reality no matter what the evidence against you. If you don't mind - I'll take the word of right wing Fox News - they probably have the tape

Why are you trying to indicate that there was wrong doing when you don't know the outcome of the investigation any more than I do?

Just pointing out what everyone already knows – The Bush Administration has been very reluctant to allow the 9/11 Committee to have access to the president’s daily briefing notes. They have offered no reason, other than national security, but that excuse is hard to cotton to when the committee members have top-secret security clearance. I might add that Bush only agreed to the formation of the Investigation after considerable pressure! Really makes you wonder what he has to hide, huh?

for Gore's father, … I just though I would use this liberal nonsensical logic against one of their own, using facts.

So your now saying you recognized how bizarre and illogical your post was, but posted it anyway to make a point?! C’mon Rodney, we’re not THAT gullible! You made an honest mistake – there’s nothing so shameful about that. Better to take responsibility for it than to embarrass yourself trying to dodge the truth.

Joe

It was in March 00 that things went down and on 9/11....your own chart says that.

Could you explain to us why Al could not carry his own state? Did they know something the rest did not know? If he carried HIS OWN STATE he would have won the election. Glad Al endorsed Dean. Hope he gets the nod. Hell I like Joe. Just not enough.
-----
RicK Denmon

Ball Boutique,Inc.

but it looks very clear to me that it did so just about exactly the same time Bush was stealing the election from the winner of the popular vote!

What? It looks very clear to you? Can't you read a graph and see that the economy was tanking 7 months prior? Just look at Bush's inauguration date of Jan. 20th 2001 and go backwards in time on the graph for 7 months, it's really not that hard!

Bush was stealing the election by popular vote? Since when has the United States not used the Electoral College for a presidential election? Did you know that Bush won 30 states while Gore only won 21? That is almost 50% more states! Did you know that Gore won the popular vote by about one half of one percent? Did you know that every independent investigation has shown that Bush won the state of Florida no matter how you recount the votes? Unless you throw out the Constitution, like you tried to do with Florida's election laws, Bush still would have won the presidency! Too bad the founding fathers didn't want each state to get an equal vote, huh? Too bad 50% more states isn't enough to win in your opinion, but .5% more popular votes is plenty to win by! It's such a small margin, that the election is reported as 48% to 48%! (Since you think the Electoral College should be thrown out, why not use the number of state votes instead of the popular vote? Do you think the small state of New York is more important to this union than a large state like Texas?)

Um, you have heard of Clinton’s Welfare to Work Program? Clinton pretty much taught the republicans how to play the game with this one. The republican leaders where having a cow as Clinton lifted their “big cause” out from under their nose.

Yes, I have heard of that, and am very familiar with it. It is the only thing Clinton did while in office that was worthwhile in my opinion. Virtually every republican is for it! The reason republicans were so mad is that they couldn't get it passed, after years of trying to do so, because all the democrats always voted against it.--until Clinton endorsed it. Then the democrats claim responsibility for it! While there is some truth to that, why have they historically always voted against it? Hypocrisy is on both sides on this one-just so Clinton could make some political points. It is exactly like Bush's Medicaid program. Both presidents took sides opposite of what their party supported in order to pull the rug out from under the opposition. So what is that supposed to prove? That democrats will be hypocrites and go against their core beliefs if it suits them politically? That Bush did the same thing? So what? I was talking about their core beliefs and how they have always voted on these issues historically.

So your saying Fox News got it wrong?

I don't know, I think I saw the interview on CNN. I really don't remember what channel it was as I was channel surfing at the time. If Fox left that part out, then they blew it. But from what I have seen from your posts here, I suspect it is you who left out the fact that FOX did present it. It would be very unlike them to leave important things out of an interview when they are a 24 hour news station, but I guess it is possible.

The Bush Administration has been very reluctant to allow the 9/11 Committee to have access to the president's daily briefing notes

That, I will agree with. They have been very reluctant to allow any info. to get out. As for the reasons why, that is pure speculation. Could be anything from national security and not wanting a possible leak of something vital to this country to what the liberal media will do with it. If Bush got 45 communications from around the world about various threats every single day of his presidency, the media would surely say he was negligent for not picking this particular one to act on. (regardless of how good the source was or was not.) I don't blame him one bit!

Really makes you wonder what he has to hide, huh?

Not at all. Makes me wonder why we should spend the money on something that will most likely show nothing at all. And if it does show a warning, what about all the other warnings that are blown off every day due to insufficient proof or plausibility? Do you really think Bush wanted 9/11 to happen on his watch? Now that's delusional!

So your now saying you recognized how bizarre and illogical your post was, but posted it anyway to make a point?!

Nope, I recognized how illogical that argument was since I have been hearing it everyday on liberal radio for many weeks. I just figured you would appreciate it since it is the logic of the left.

Rodney

Can't you read a graph and see that the economy was tanking 7 months prior? Just look at Bush's inauguration date of Jan. 20th 2001 and go backwards in time on the graph for 7 months, it's really not that hard!

Remember Rodney, I was trying to point out how silly your comment was that Bush was busy after his election “fixing the Clinton economy”. That’s just a nonsensical comment that makes it clear to everyone what an ideologue you are. No president is uniquely responsible for the economy, and to attempt to assert that the Clinton economy needed fixing by Bush reflects a real ignorance of some basic economic facts. Its like your engaged in some serious wishful thinking.

There were a total of a whopping 6 shutdowns of internet companies in the year 2000. Bush was inaugurated in Jan, 2001. That year there were 220 shutdowns! Every respected history of the internet bust I’ve read states clearly that the bust began in March of 2001. So was Bush responsible? Of course not. Was Clinton responsible months after he left office? According to Rodney he was – bizarre world you live in!

Your insinuation that Gore’s father was a racist is equally bizarre, your use of an article that exonerates him to bolster your partisan perception is just inexplicable.

Did you know that Gore won the popular vote by about one half of one percent?

Why yes I did. Which is why I used the phrase “Stole the Election”!

Yes, I have heard of that, [Welfare to Work Program] and am very familiar with it. It is the only thing Clinton did while in office that was worthwhile in my opinion. Virtually every republican is for it!

So your assertion that Democrats can only see fit to give handouts has some pretty serious flaws. Not only because it was Clinton that managed to get welfare reformed, but because Bush has overseen the biggest farm subsidy in American history, the biggest “welfare” medicare program imaginable and the largest deficit in recent history? You can have your bias, but it helps if you look for a little balance. If anything, it keeps you from looking totally loony.

It would be very unlike [FOXNews] to leave important things out of an interview when they are a 24 hour news station, but I guess it is possible.

Well, that’s pretty funny too, but misses the point. The quote I provided was from Fox News. Your confused my man!

That, I will agree with. They have been very reluctant to allow any info. to get out. As for the reasons why, that is pure speculation.

But generally when people withhold evidence, we know why

Joe