9/11 Investigation Chairman: Attack was Preventable - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Superbelt · 12-17-2003, 06:44 PM

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in589137.shtml

Quote:

(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.

..

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.

..

"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.

..

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.

Ok, just to reiterate, Keane is a Republican, and hand picked by Bush to head up this investigation. This isn't a case of "Hate america, Hate Bush" syndrome.

I agree and anticipate the findings of this investigation. I know what Clinton set up for Bush to tear down. I believe Bush and Co. have been negligent.

Superbelt · 12-17-2003, 06:48 PM

Time Magazine 'Clinton Plan' August 4, 2003

Quote:

"With less than a month left in office, they did not think it appropriate to launch a major initiative against Osama bin Laden. "We would be handing [the Bush Administration] a war when they took office on Jan. 20," says a former senior Clinton aide. "That wasn't going to happen."

"In the words of a senior Bush Administration official, the proposals amounted to "everything we've done since 9/11."

It really should have been prevented. A competent President would have taken Clinton seriously and either followed through with the plan or analyze it, reject it if need be, and come up with his own plan.
Clinton, would have, if he had enough time. And we probrably would have prevented 9/11.

2wolves · 12-18-2003, 03:18 AM

Anyone recall when the United States needed a special prosecutor when Vice President Gore used the wrong telephone?

2Wolves

sixate · 12-18-2003, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Clinton, would have, if he had enough time.

Thanks for the laugh. I'm gonna laugh my ass off all day over that one.

Maybe if he woulda stopped fucking skanky interns he may have done something, but he'd rather fuck skanks than kill terrorists.

Superbelt · 12-18-2003, 05:21 AM

Eh, he had his problems. But he created the exact plan Bush used to take out al Qaeda.

You think he wouldn't have followed though with his own plan, given enough time?

onetime2 · 12-18-2003, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Eh, he had his problems. But he created the exact plan Bush used to take out al Qaeda.

You think he wouldn't have followed though with his own plan, given enough time?

I'm sorry, but Clinton had plenty of time. Al Qaeda didn't just appear right before Bush was to take office.

There were plenty of failures to fight terrorism. Every administration going back twenty plus years is to blame. Finger pointing towards only one is completely inappropriate.

Liquor Dealer · 12-18-2003, 05:58 AM

"A competent President would have taken Clinton seriously "!

You gotta' be kiddin'! Nobody takes Clinton seriously!!!

In all seriousness, very little happens on this earth that is not preventable with a little Monday morning quarterbacking. All of the unwanted and unplanned pregnancies in the world this year were preventable. We just have to find a big enough place to lock up all these females.

onetime2 · 12-18-2003, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquor Dealer
We just have to find a big enough place to lock up all these females.

Hey, can I get a key? Sounds like an excellent vacation spot.

Superbelt · 12-18-2003, 08:58 AM

Simple fact is, he had the plan, he would have done it. It was a direct response to the USS Cole bombing.

Ustwo · 12-18-2003, 09:09 AM

Hilary Clinton claims they didn't do 'the plan' because 'the people' would not be behind it and 9/11 was a great excuse for it.

Superbelt · 12-18-2003, 09:31 AM

Really? She was president in 2000?
Besides, where does she say this?

She is right about one thing though, the people would not be behind it, and those people would be led by a republican congress who would have just complained that this was "wag the dog"

JBX · 12-18-2003, 10:02 AM

Ahhh, looking backwards in time there it is. I see sooo clearly now. It could of been prevented... Had Clonton picked up UBL the two times he had the opportuinty.

2wolves · 12-18-2003, 10:36 AM

The U.S. taxpayer still has spent more money on the last shuttle disaster than investigating the attacks of 11 September.

Do you ever wonder why that is?

2Wolves

Superbelt · 12-18-2003, 10:39 AM

We also spent more investigating Clintons penis and Gore using the wrong phone to solicit for campaign contributions.

Liquor Dealer · 12-18-2003, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2wolves
The U.S. taxpayer still has spent more money on the last shuttle disaster than investigating the attacks of 11 September.

Do you ever wonder why that is?

2Wolves

Excuse me for being naive but just waht the fuck is left to be investigated? They came over, stayed a while, hijacked some airplanes and crashed them into buildings. Do we need thier horoscopes or something else? They know who they were, where they came from, who financed them, and their prupose and intent. Are we missing something else that you feel needs to be investigated?

filtherton · 12-18-2003, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2wolves
The U.S. taxpayer still has spent more money on the last shuttle disaster than investigating the attacks of 11 September.

Do you ever wonder why that is?

2Wolves

All of the money went to bailing out the airline industry and shielding it from lawsuits. Ironic, since if not for lax airport security 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

SLM3 · 12-18-2003, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquor Dealer
Excuse me for being naive but just waht the fuck is left to be investigated? They came over, stayed a while, hijacked some airplanes and crashed them into buildings. Do we need thier horoscopes or something else? They know who they were, where they came from, who financed them, and their prupose and intent. Are we missing something else that you feel needs to be investigated?

Just out of my own curiosity, what was their purpose and intent? I ask simply because I truly don't think most American's have the faintest idea.

SLM3

lordjeebus · 12-18-2003, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquor Dealer
Excuse me for being naive but just waht the fuck is left to be investigated? They came over, stayed a while, hijacked some airplanes and crashed them into buildings. Do we need thier horoscopes or something else? They know who they were, where they came from, who financed them, and their prupose and intent. Are we missing something else that you feel needs to be investigated?

The terrorists themselves are not the focus of investigation; rather it is our government that needs to be investigated:

Did US have intelligence that could have prevented it?
If so, did the Bush Administration ignore such information?
If not, how did our intelligence-gathering agencies fail?

How much did we know? Why didn't we know more? Why didn't we act on what we did know?

Tophat665 · 12-18-2003, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lordjeebus
The terrorists themselves are not the focus of investigation; rather it is our government that needs to be investigated:

Did US have intelligence that could have prevented it?
If so, did the Bush Administration ignore such information?
If not, how did our intelligence-gathering agencies fail?

How much did we know? Why didn't we know more? Why didn't we act on what we did know?

From the article, it appears that the answers were:

yes,

absolutely,

our intelligence community didn't push as hard as they should have,

quite a lot,

because we rely too heavily on sigint and not enough on human intelligence and because the folks we have looking at the sigint speak better Russian, German, and Chinese than they do Arabic and Pashtun,

and, finally (and this is purely my speculation), because it was politically inconvenient to act on what information there was, what plans were in place to deal with this kind of information were drafted by an administration that had been roundly excoriated by the members of this administration and most of their most ardent supporters for the better part of the previous decade, the current administration misunderestimated the nature of the threat, and, possibly (I am not accusing, but I see no reason to believe that they are above this) they were of the opinion that a terrorist attack on this country would be the very thing to jumpstart their dead in the water political agenda, never dreaming that what was coming down the pike would make Oklahoma City look like somebody hitting the neighbor's dog with a bottle rocket.

Yeah, that about covers it.

onetime2 · 12-19-2003, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tophat665
possibly (I am not accusing, but I see no reason to believe that they are above this) they were of the opinion that a terrorist attack on this country would be the very thing to jumpstart their dead in the water political agenda, never dreaming that what was coming down the pike would make Oklahoma City look like somebody hitting the neighbor's dog with a bottle rocket.

Yeah, that about covers it.

Please. What absolute crap. Yeah I'm sure that was their plan. They were just sitting around hoping that thousands of innocent civilians would be killed by terrorists so they could invade Iraq. This kind of thinking is what makes it difficult to take you seriously when you actually make coherent points.

Tophat665 · 12-19-2003, 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
Please. What absolute crap. Yeah I'm sure that was their plan. They were just sitting around hoping that thousands of innocent civilians would be killed by terrorists so they could invade Iraq. This kind of thinking is what makes it difficult to take you seriously when you actually make coherent points.

Yah know, when you come back like this, it really makes me wonder why I bother to edit the best bits out of my posts to keep people from getting their feathers ruffled unduly. Be that as it may, read what you quoted:

1) "Possibly". Not definitely

2) In case possibly wasn't enough, I note that I am not accusing them of this, just that I think they are scum.

3) Turns out a terrorist attack on this country was exactly what needed to happen to jumpstart a dead in the water political agenda. That's not evidence for, but it's certainly convenient.

4) Actually, if they were doing this, they were sitting around hoping for the death of a handful or less and the injury of dozens. Enough to scare, but not enough to hurt. That's what that last clause was about.

5) While invading Iraq is certainly way up at the top of things I dislike about the current administration, it was not and still is not their top priority. That would be getting elected, closely followed by tax cuts and kickbacks for campaign contributors and only then national security, and Iraq isn't even at the top of that list (nor should it be). It just gets all the media because that's where we're hemmorhaging.

So in summary, if's not absolute crap. It's possible crap, marked as speculative at least three times in three different ways.

Absolute Crap would be something along the lines of: The reason Dick Cheney has been spending so much time in an undisclosed location is beause he sustained some facial injuries parachuting out of the plane that hit the Pentagon, and he's had to stay out of sight or heavily made up while they heal. Now that is absolute crap.

onetime2 · 12-19-2003, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tophat665
Yah know, when you come back like this, it really makes me wonder why I bother to edit the best bits out of my posts to keep people from getting their feathers ruffled unduly. Be that as it may, read what you quoted:

1) "Possibly". Not definitely

2) In case possibly wasn't enough, I note that I am not accusing them of this, just that I think they are scum.

3) Turns out a terrorist attack on this country was exactly what needed to happen to jumpstart a dead in the water political agenda. That's not evidence for, but it's certainly convenient.

4) Actually, if they were doing this, they were sitting around hoping for the death of a handful or less and the injury of dozens. Enough to scare, but not enough to hurt. That's what that last clause was about.

5) While invading Iraq is certainly way up at the top of things I dislike about the current administration, it was not and still is not their top priority. That would be getting elected, closely followed by tax cuts and kickbacks for campaign contributors and only then national security, and Iraq isn't even at the top of that list (nor should it be). It just gets all the media because that's where we're hemmorhaging.

So in summary, if's not absolute crap. It's possible crap, marked as speculative at least three times in three different ways.

Absolute Crap would be something along the lines of: The reason Dick Cheney has been spending so much time in an undisclosed location is beause he sustained some facial injuries parachuting out of the plane that hit the Pentagon, and he's had to stay out of sight or heavily made up while they heal. Now that is absolute crap.

Prefacing an accusatory statement with a "I'm not accusing anyone" is absolute crap no matter how you slice it. Your hatred of the administration comes shining through in statements like this and taints any legitimate complaints you may have against them.

Ustwo · 12-19-2003, 06:52 AM

Never get overly defensive/offensive until you have multiple sources.

Quote:

9/11 Panel Head Says Can't Blame Bush, Clinton

Thursday, December 18, 2003

WASHINGTON — The chairman of a federal commission looking into the Sept. 11 attacks said Thursday that mistakes over many years left the United States vulnerable to such an attack, but he resisted pinning blame on either of the last two presidential teams.

"We have no evidence that anybody high in the Clinton administration or the Bush administration did anything wrong," chairman Thomas Kean (search) said in an interview with ABC's "Nightline" taped for airing Thursday night.

Kean said the 10-member National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (search) has not decided whether to ask former President Clinton or President Bush to testify. He also said that any conclusions about the performance of high-level officials "will be reached when we are finished with our job, not now."

Kean sought to clarify remarks attributed to him in a CBS News report that aired Wednesday.

In the CBS interview, Kean said the commission's report, due May 27, will detail "what wasn't done and what should have be done" to prevent the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

He added, "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."

CBS reported that Kean's comments constituted "pointing fingers inside the (Bush) administration and laying blame."

On Thursday, Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark (search) labeled Kean's statements "disturbing" and said they showed the Bush administration could have done more to protect America from a terrorist attack.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (search), D-N.J., said Kean's comments meant "that Bush administration officials had valuable information that could have prevented the terrorist attacks."

But Kean said in Thursday's interview that he did not mean to suggest that certain federal officials should have been fired after Sept. 11. He said he was commenting on obvious mistakes that were made, such as letting terrorists into the country and letting dangerous items onto planes.

"There are a number of steps along the way, that if they had occurred differently, this event wouldn't have occurred," he said.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said he reviewed the CBS report and did not believe Kean leveled accusations against the Bush administration.

"There is nothing that we have seen that leads us to believe that Sept. 11 could have been prevented," McClellan said

Well there you have it. Now lets all get back to bashing France.

Superbelt · 12-19-2003, 06:57 AM

This waffling on Keans part is negated when he says this in the same press release.

Quote:

"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."

Condi is at the top of the list as it was her prime responsibility, Rummy belongs there too, and Bush IS their boss.

Ustwo · 12-19-2003, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Condi is at the top of the list as it was her prime responsibility, Rummy belongs there too, and Bush IS their boss.

Yes it must be Condi, Rummy, and Bushy, since you WANT it to be. Come on Superbelt quit grasping.

onetime2 · 12-19-2003, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
This waffling on Keans part is negated when he says this in the same press release.

Condi is at the top of the list as it was her prime responsibility, Rummy belongs there too, and Bush IS their boss.

Kean points to failures from as far back as the first WTC attack, will you also hold Clinton responsible?

Superbelt · 12-19-2003, 08:38 AM

Tophat665 · 12-19-2003, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
Prefacing an accusatory statement with a "I'm not accusing anyone" is absolute crap no matter how you slice it. Your hatred of the administration comes shining through in statements like this and taints any legitimate complaints you may have against them.

Do get over you. If one says several different ways that one is speculating, then one deserves the benefit of the doubt. I admit that I find this administration suspect at best. Hatred may be too strong a word, or it may not. However, I am willing to admit they're onto something when they are on to something. See my replies in the "Going to the Moon", "Denying contracts to non coalition members", and "Links between Iraq and al-Qaeda" for grudging admissions of that.

That said, if you'd like to come back with another personal attack, that's OK, but I'm done with it. That's not what this thread or this forum is about.

Tophat665 · 12-19-2003, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Never get overly defensive/offensive until you have multiple sources.

(Story in which Kean backpedals)

Well there you have it. Now lets all get back to bashing France.

As fun as France bashing is, let's stay on this a little longer. A republican chair of a republican appointed investigation says against all expectations that the administration that appointed him is at fault one day, and then the next day says he didn't mean that, and includes the previous Democratic administration in his denial, and the republican press secretary says he never said anything of the sort.

You don't suppose that Kean spent a good part of the last evening fielding one angry telephone call after another? That perhaps someone started rattling whatever skeletons were in Kean's closet in his ear and pointed out how easy it would be to have Faux news start rattling them for a wider audience? Maybe he misspoke, the the smart money is against. Watch as the blame is shifted back one administration. You can see it being set up here. "Bush did it" becomes "Neither Bush nor Clinton did it". The obvious next step is "Clinton did it".

We are truly blessed to have this clear an opportunity to see revisionism at work.

Superbelt · 12-19-2003, 10:16 AM

But this time next week, it will be complete denial. Noone will remember the "process"

down down down, the memory hole.

Ustwo · 12-19-2003, 10:43 AM

You guys ever think that MAYBE the CBC might have just blown what Kean said an ittty bitty bit out of proportion.

They put in a Rice quote and THEY put in the widows quote, not Kean.

Perhaps the CBC wants its own spin eh? (note my use of Canadian)

Tophat665 · 12-19-2003, 10:47 AM

Ustwo - CBC might have blown it out of proportion. Or they might not have.

I trust the CBC quite a bit more than I trust day-after backpedaling from a fellow appointed by what appears to me to be a severely truth impaired administration.

I could be wrong, but time will tell.

james t kirk · 12-19-2003, 10:54 AM

YOU HAVE TO READ THIS ARTICLE that was written in Time Magasine in August of 2002.

It's a brilliant work.

In a nutshell, it would appear that Bush and company were too busy tearing down everything Clinton had put together to care about lost time dealing with terrorists.

Bush and Rice totally dropped the ball on this one and I am amazed that someone hasn't fingered them to date on the issue.

It's all about partisan politics. Bush/Rice didn't want any perception in Washington that the previous administration had clue one to do with anything.

As a result, you had a lapse in Security.

Ironically, it would appear that the French had warned the USA that Al-Queada was up to something just days before it happened.

It's a great read, and you can now access Time's back issues over the net for no cost. You used to have to pay for such things.

Read it.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...333835,00.html

Ustwo · 12-19-2003, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tophat665
Ustwo - CBC might have blown it out of proportion. Or they might not have.

I trust the CBC quite a bit more than I trust day-after backpedaling from a fellow appointed by what appears to me to be a severely truth impaired administration.

I could be wrong, but time will tell.

Kean said the SAME thing, the difference is the spin. I know you will only call it the truth if it hurts Bush, but read the stories. Kean said very little, and the CBC did a lot of extrapolating.

Superbelt · 12-19-2003, 11:30 AM

"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."

"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.

What is the spin on these quotes?
Explain to me how you can interpret them differently?

Tophat665 · 12-19-2003, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
I know you will only call it the truth if it hurts Bush, but read the stories.

Not quite true. I'll call it the truth if I can find a source I trust that can convince me. Right now, we've two sources I trust, but one of them is derving much of their story from suspect sources. So the first story still hold my interest. Let it build a little one way or the other and my opinion could change.

Not that I wouldn't feel somewhat vindicated if it turns out Bush & Co. got it wrong. Now, before you get going on how could I feel good about it, let me point it out here: I am convinced that the current administration is bad for this country. What moves them out of power faster is a cause for joy, even as it is also a cause for sadness and rage against the people who made this whole thing an issue to begin with.

james t kirk · 12-19-2003, 11:57 AM

The question is what will the future hold.

Will Al Queada get its hands on a nuke and mail it to NYC?

Will the pull a repeat 911?

Has anyone seen the new designs for the "Freedom Tower" It's taller than the old WTC. I dunno about you, but I wouldn't want to work up there. Not without a parachute.

Come to think of it, how come they don't put parachutes on top of really tall buildings?

Ustwo · 12-19-2003, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
"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."

"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.

What is the spin on these quotes?
Explain to me how you can interpret them differently?

No wonder liberals don't understand the idea of a 'liberal press'.

Where did YOU get the idea to talk about Rice? Oh yea from this....

Quote:

"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.

THAT my friend is the spin. They didn't fake the quotes, but they put the idea in YOUR mind that Rice was at fault. He could have ment the FBI or CIA directors, but you thought Rice because they put that quote in. Personaly I think these people have more to worry about then Rice.

Superbelt · 12-19-2003, 12:33 PM

I think Tenet may have to worry. We will see.

But Rice is his direct superior. Her position was created by Clinton to coordinate the various intelligence and defense agencies so some of the important clues that would have stopped this didn't fall through the cracks.

I have long thought, since before THIS article, that Condi was at fault. I have held that opinion since the Time piece where I learned of Clintons plan and Condi's dismissal of it.

MSD · 12-19-2003, 10:43 PM

If the attack was preventable, maybe we should stop arguning about whether Bush or Clinton is to blame and try to make sure we catch the next one before it happens. I have relatives and friends in New York, Chicago, LA, etc. and I'd rather have them stay safe than bitch and moan about how much I hate the president.

12-18-2003, 03:18 AM	#3 (permalink)
2wolves Psycho Location: Just outside the D.C. belt	Anyone recall when the United States needed a special prosecutor when Vice President Gore used the wrong telephone? 2Wolves __________________ Nation of the Cat. Forgive maybe, forget .... not quite yet.

12-18-2003, 05:58 AM	#7 (permalink)
Liquor Dealer Super Agitator Location: Just SW of Nowhere!!! In the good old US of A	"A competent President would have taken Clinton seriously "! You gotta' be kiddin'! Nobody takes Clinton seriously!!! In all seriousness, very little happens on this earth that is not preventable with a little Monday morning quarterbacking. All of the unwanted and unplanned pregnancies in the world this year were preventable. We just have to find a big enough place to lock up all these females. __________________ Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

12-18-2003, 09:09 AM	#10 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Hilary Clinton claims they didn't do 'the plan' because 'the people' would not be behind it and 9/11 was a great excuse for it. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-18-2003, 10:02 AM	#12 (permalink)
JBX Unfair and Imbalanced Location: Upstate, NY	Ahhh, looking backwards in time there it is. I see sooo clearly now. It could of been prevented... Had Clonton picked up UBL the two times he had the opportuinty. __________________ "Youth and Strength is no match for Age and Treachery"

12-18-2003, 10:36 AM	#13 (permalink)
2wolves Psycho Location: Just outside the D.C. belt	The U.S. taxpayer still has spent more money on the last shuttle disaster than investigating the attacks of 11 September. Do you ever wonder why that is? 2Wolves __________________ Nation of the Cat. Forgive maybe, forget .... not quite yet.

12-18-2003, 05:21 AM	#5 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Eh, he had his problems. But he created the exact plan Bush used to take out al Qaeda. You think he wouldn't have followed though with his own plan, given enough time?

12-18-2003, 08:58 AM	#9 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Simple fact is, he had the plan, he would have done it. It was a direct response to the USS Cole bombing.

12-18-2003, 09:31 AM	#11 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Really? She was president in 2000? Besides, where does she say this? She is right about one thing though, the people would not be behind it, and those people would be led by a republican congress who would have just complained that this was "wag the dog"

12-18-2003, 10:39 AM	#14 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	We also spent more investigating Clintons penis and Gore using the wrong phone to solicit for campaign contributions.

12-19-2003, 08:38 AM	#27 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Yes.

12-19-2003, 10:16 AM	#30 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	But this time next week, it will be complete denial. Noone will remember the "process" down down down, the memory hole.

12-19-2003, 10:43 AM	#31 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	You guys ever think that MAYBE the CBC might have just blown what Kean said an ittty bitty bit out of proportion. They put in a Rice quote and THEY put in the widows quote, not Kean. Perhaps the CBC wants its own spin eh? (note my use of Canadian) __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-19-2003, 10:47 AM	#32 (permalink)
Tophat665 Minion of the scaléd ones Location: Northeast Jesusland	Ustwo - CBC might have blown it out of proportion. Or they might not have. I trust the CBC quite a bit more than I trust day-after backpedaling from a fellow appointed by what appears to me to be a severely truth impaired administration. I could be wrong, but time will tell. __________________ Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

12-19-2003, 10:54 AM	#33 (permalink)
james t kirk Junkie Location: Toronto	YOU HAVE TO READ THIS ARTICLE that was written in Time Magasine in August of 2002. It's a brilliant work. In a nutshell, it would appear that Bush and company were too busy tearing down everything Clinton had put together to care about lost time dealing with terrorists. Bush and Rice totally dropped the ball on this one and I am amazed that someone hasn't fingered them to date on the issue. It's all about partisan politics. Bush/Rice didn't want any perception in Washington that the previous administration had clue one to do with anything. As a result, you had a lapse in Security. Ironically, it would appear that the French had warned the USA that Al-Queada was up to something just days before it happened. It's a great read, and you can now access Time's back issues over the net for no cost. You used to have to pay for such things. Read it. http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...333835,00.html

12-19-2003, 11:30 AM	#35 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	"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." "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. What is the spin on these quotes? Explain to me how you can interpret them differently?

12-19-2003, 11:57 AM	#37 (permalink)
james t kirk Junkie Location: Toronto	The question is what will the future hold. Will Al Queada get its hands on a nuke and mail it to NYC? Will the pull a repeat 911? Has anyone seen the new designs for the "Freedom Tower" It's taller than the old WTC. I dunno about you, but I wouldn't want to work up there. Not without a parachute. Come to think of it, how come they don't put parachutes on top of really tall buildings?

12-19-2003, 12:33 PM	#39 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	I think Tenet may have to worry. We will see. But Rice is his direct superior. Her position was created by Clinton to coordinate the various intelligence and defense agencies so some of the important clues that would have stopped this didn't fall through the cracks. I have long thought, since before THIS article, that Condi was at fault. I have held that opinion since the Time piece where I learned of Clintons plan and Condi's dismissal of it.

12-19-2003, 10:43 PM	#40 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	If the attack was preventable, maybe we should stop arguning about whether Bush or Clinton is to blame and try to make sure we catch the next one before it happens. I have relatives and friends in New York, Chicago, LA, etc. and I'd rather have them stay safe than bitch and moan about how much I hate the president.