The 9/11 Commission Findings

[HBox]

Attacks could have and should have be prevented (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/17/eveningnews/main589137.shtml)

This isn't going to be good for Bush I'd guess. This article gives the impression that it's putting blame squarely on the Bush administration, although I'm sure once testimony starts, Clinton won't get off scott free.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[newport king]

as much as i don't really like the president or his tacticsin the war on terror, hindsight is always 20/20. yes we were supposedly warned since 1991 planes could be used as missles but there are a million things that could hypothetically happen.

~another newport king joint~

[high fly]

Uhhh, just a guess, but all of those documents that the Bush administration has been keeping from the commission probably show them as being prepared and alert for anything Al Qaida might come up with...

" and they ask me why I drink"

[Snoogans]

yea newport makes a good point, someone tells me they are gonna shoot me, and then 10 years later they shoot me, what the fuck could i have done.

and even if you know something could happen, doesnt mean we still coulda stopped it. i mean, people are still gettin box cutters on planes to prove that they can. no one can plan for shti these days, on any level.

plus who woulda believed it before 9/11. funny after, everyone thought they were so important. oh we cant go out to the deli, a terrorist might get us.

funny how confident we are when nothing happened, and how vulnerable we feel when it does.

we need to get over ourselves and realize that this was gonna happen. if not when it did, at some point. these people just hate us

http://home.comcast.net/~jamesgpatton/image004.jpg
TallJames is the man
The BCS is a fuckin crock of shit
The Heisman voters have about as much knowledge of things as dexter manly had ability to read
Snoogans 1, Monitor 0

[high fly]

They were warned a lot sooner than 10 years.

The Bush administration was warned coming in that terrorism would be their biggest concern, yet they ignored that warning.
There were warnings and strong clues a few months before 9-11.

The bottom line is, after all the explanations and reasons and excuses are in, the Bush administration failed in it's most important duty.



" and they ask me why I drink"

[Yerdaddy]

The article doesn't seem particularly hard on the administration. It seemed fairly superficial as well, but it's a television news organization. We'll get better analysis in the print media.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
TEAR THE BITCH APART!

[newport king]

even if they were warned on september 10th do you have any idea how many planes are in the air at any exact moment. as much as i wish it never happened is did. they would never have grounded all the flights for the day because i'm sure there are thousands of threats this country gets every week that you never even hear about. besides were we supposed to build a force field around the twin towers or something? like i said hindsight is 20/20.

~another newport king joint~

[Yerdaddy]

I think that what he's talking about when he says the attacks were preventable is things like the fact that the defensive posture of NORAD at the time was exclusively focussed outward from our borders, despite the fact that there were warnings inside the intelligence community that these types of attacks were a real threat. Also the federal government refused to implement the reccommendations of several terrorism and airline security commissions from the 90s under pressure from the airline industry, which didn't want to spend any money, but also didn't want to lose the contracts to the federal government.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
TEAR THE BITCH APART!

[Teenweek]

They were warned a lot sooner than 10 years.

The Bush administration was warned coming in that terrorism would be their biggest concern, yet they ignored that warning.
There were warnings and strong clues a few months before 9-11.

The bottom line is, after all the explanations and reasons and excuses are in, the Bush administration failed in it's most important duty.





Clinton's so called warnings (http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200310290829.asp)

What BJ Clinton did to combat terrorism or really did not do. (http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/billC.htm)

I am not just blaming Clinton. It was something not expected missed by both administrations. They get thousands of those threat matrix's a day. Like someone said hindsight is 20/20. Both administrations deserved some of the blame. The thing about Bush though is he is doing something about it. Billy Boy did little.

[MizzleTizzle]

Nasty people can bring down planes.

Planes aren't adequately equipped to deal with this.

I think this problem existed since the very first passenger took a flight.

Hotels aren't adequately equipped.
Schools aren't adequately equipped.
Stadiums aren't adequatly equipped.

When has this not existed?

[A.J.]

Did they also determine that Grady should have pulled Pedro in Game 7?

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">
A Skidmark production.

Red Sox Nation

[DJEvelEd]

Hotels aren't adequately equipped.
Schools aren't adequately equipped.
Stadiums aren't adequatly equipped.

Hospitals too. But on the other hand, God help the hospital security guard that stops me from running into a hospital if one of my family is dying and gives me this security shit. It's a double edged sword.

<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/canofsoup15/images/dj-sig.gif">
May Your Pockmarked Penis Penetrate A Puckered Poohole Pushing A Partially Processed Poop Pudding Product - (Old Arabic Blessing)

[Bill From Yorktown]

of COURSE it was preventable, but then again so was Pearl Harbor, the bombing of Hiroshima, the Challenger disaster, the Hindenberg, etc etc etc. The issue is that Clinton turned his back on a lot of what was going on, and is now pointing the finger at Bush saying "I warned him".
1 - what EXACTLY was GW supposed to do in the 9 months he had to undo the damage Clinton did dismantling the "spy network"
2 - who's to say that Clinton is to be believed anyway? Has he lied to us before? Anyone?

I am NOT saying that Bush doesnt have his share of the blame, but if you bring in a relief pitcher in the 7th inning, and you're down 10-2, he has a DEEP hole to get out of. If he ends up leaving the game 12-2, how much of it is his fault?

<IMG SRC="http://hometown.aol.com/billb914/sigpic.gif">

[sr71blackbird]

I dont see why they cant install live video cameras on planes that show whats going on in the cabin and have that video beamed down to some place where people watch to make sure nothings up.

The fact is, we tend to get on high alert after such an event and after 4 years, we go back to letting out guard down. We do it EVERY time, and the terrorists know it, they count on it. Theyll strike again when our guards down.

<center>
http://www.osirusonline.com/sr71.gif </center>


<center><B>My Thanks to Reefdwella for the sig-pic!</B></center>

<center><B><strike>Folgers and Lava</strike></B></center>

<marquee behavior=alternate><font size=1>( o Y o )</marquee>

[curtoid]

In the spring of 2001, Ashcroft and the Justice Department actually began de-emphasizing counterterrorism as a federal priority, while Donald Rumsfeld's cancelled a Predator drone that had been tracking bin Laden in Afghanistan.

About the same time Sandy Berger, Clinton's national security adviser, briefed Condoleezza Rice on the threat posed by al Qaeda - she reportedly didn't take the warnings seriously. All of this between 1/20/01 and 9/11/01.

And despite the administration's claims that Bush had no idea attacks were immenent, there was a Newsweek article that noted President Bush received a briefing on August 6, 2001 which raised warnings about terrorist airline hijackings and Osama's methods of operation.

Blame for these attacks, though, should not rest 100% on Bush (although, since they were during his watch, he should take the responsibility seriously), but rather they can go back to every President starting with Ronald Reagan.

[KOP]

[saveopieanthony.net]

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/006054354X/102-0710288-0128158?v=glance

"1,000 years for Revenge" (above for reference..i don't work for amazon) is honestly the best thing i've ever read on the subject.

Bush's advisor Rice said "we had no idea terrorists could use airplanes to target buildings"..is she fucking kidding?

In 1996 Algerian Terrorists (who have since been tracked to Al Queada) hijacked an Air France plane...forced it to land. They said their next stop was Paris...and asked for like four times the amount of fuel needed to get there...they were going to use it the same way as it 9-11.

There were numerous warnings prior to 9-11, which now look naiive, but you have to remember it wasn't an option. if 9-11 didn't happen would the public allow soldiers to be on the other side of the world again fighting and searching for terrorists?

John O Neil was working with the FBI and was the first government offical to include Bin Laden in a security report. He worked with the CIA trying to get this guy...and eventually after years of doing this he was eventually forced out of the FBI because of personal things against him. He drank..and there was one time he left a briefcase with top secret documents in a conference room in a hotel and it was moved....his bosses didn't like him rocking the boat anyway and used that as an excuse to kick him out.

He left the FBI and took a job in 2001, as Security Advisor. At the World Trade Center. "The Man Who Knew" was a PBS special which higlighted his career. The one man who knew Bin Laden was a threat...got killed on 9/11....at the WTC...scary..



Big Ass Card Holder 1230 (whoo--aaah)

"Ronnie...this guy Hank said "I'm going to kill you Fat girl" - Fez
"Really...that means he must know you" - Ron

Uncle Ronnie and Auntie Fezzie - Radio's Funniest Secret Couple......of radio guys

[sr71blackbird]

I would have to say that unless they had compelling evedence that hijacked airliners were going to be used as missiles by flying them into buildings and on a certain day and time and nothing was done about it, then Id see the point that someone should be blamed. The thing with terrorists is, their unpredictability, the unreliability of information and the very fact that we cant just close down the country for fear of what mighthappen. Lets say, as an example, that they knew that an attack would take place in September, but not what day, where, or with what or to what magnitude. What should we have done? Closed the airline industry for a month? Please. Just consider how we have come dependant on that indistry alone. No flights, no Fed Ex packages, nothing, for a month? Just out of speculation of what might happen?

<center>
http://www.osirusonline.com/sr71.gif </center>


<center><B>My Thanks to Reefdwella for the sig-pic!</B></center>

<center><B><strike>Folgers and Lava</strike></B></center>

<marquee behavior=alternate><font size=1>( o Y o )</marquee>

[TheMojoPin]

The thing about Bush though is he is doing something about it. Billy Boy did little.

What a bullshit comparison. Bush is only "doing something" because he's been forced to. It's a reactionary measure. You're talking like Clinton and his ilk wouldn't have gone into Afghanistan or gone after terrorists after 9/11 (And let's not mix our wars...we have one in Iraq that's become a war on terror BECAUSE we're in Iraq, bit because it initially was one). Hell, NADER would have bombed Afghanistan.

And the CIA actually had EXPANDED spending under Clinton as opposed to Bush I.

Like everyone has said, hindsight is 20/20. What happened on 9/11 was unthinkable at the time. And a presidents stance on these issues is dictated BY the CIA and the intelligence community, not the other way around. This was a massive intelligence failure, through and through, and blaming it on ANY president is avoiding the actual problem.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[high fly]

The subtitle from the National Review (great choice there, Teenweek for a nonpartisan source), "Clinton almost certainl lied..." leaves a hole you could drive a truck through.
"Almost", huh?
Notice how they dodge the issue by concentrating on whether Clinton presented a detailed "war plan".
Rice and Bush and Cheney and others were told that terrorism would or should be their biggest priority and that they would find themselves concentrating on it more than any other issue.

After all the excuses and buck-passing above, the bottom line is the Bush administration failed, FAILED in it's #1 responsibility to America.

Here we are, 2 years later, and the airlines are bitching about having air marshals aboard their planes, there are further reports that airport security still has gaping holes in it, bin Laden and Mullah Omar are still on the loose, Saudi Arabia is still getting a pass from the administration, and I haven't heard of one person being disciplined for the failure to protect us on 9-11.

And let's not forget that this is an investigation of Republicans by Republicans!

I say at the very LEAST Condo Rice oughtta step down and the bastards in the FBI that got in the way oughtta be fired. That's just for starters.


(reaches for bottle of Wild Turkey)


" and they ask me why I drink"





This message was edited by high fly on 12-18-03 @ 2:14 PM

[furie]

even if they were warned on september 10th do you have any idea how many planes are in the air at any exact moment. as much as i wish it never happened is did. they would never have grounded all the flights for the day because i'm sure there are thousands of threats this country gets every week that you never even hear about. besides were we supposed to build a force field around the twin towers or something? like i said hindsight is 20/20.

~another newport king joint~

true. and it goes beyond that. it's no secret that all of the items used were allowable prior to 9-11. The FAA at the time did not have the authority to confiscate items even if they weren't. after 9-11 congress had to recodefy(?) 14CFR into 49CFR, rewriting the law so that these items could be taken at the checkpoints. Not that that would have stoped the hijacking either, but hey, it looks nice and it makes the public feel safer.


<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/ghostrider.jpg" height=100 width=300>
MERRY CHRISTMAS!

[high fly]

Do you have any idea of how many planes are in the air

Only a few with the people they should have nabbed.

So far, it appears that, like the headline sez, the attacks could have been prevented.

No more shifting of or hiding from responsibility.

The Bush administration failed in it's #1 responsibility and thousands died.

" and they ask me why I drink"

[newport king]

Only a few with the people they should have nabbed

every arab? do you have any idea what a field day the ACLU would have had with that?

~another newport king joint~

[high fly]

No, not every arab. They had leads on some of the terrorists, had their names and stuff, but the information wasn't passed along.

" and they ask me why I drink"

[TheMojoPin]

They had leads on some of the terrorists, had their names and stuff, but the information wasn't passed along.

Again, this is the fault of the CIA and the intelligence community. It would have fallen through the cracks no matter who was in charge. Continually placing blame on ANY president over the intelligence sources themselves just again and again ignores the actual problem that's going to continue as long as we keep blaming the wrong people.


<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[sr71blackbird]

I still think it would have been, and still is impossible to stop that from happeneing again. I dont think theyd get the planes to Washington, but if they took off from Kennedy or Laguardia, theyd hit before the jets could be scrambled. Everything else being disgussed is a pipe dream because of the complexity of whats involved. remember how it was right after they started letting planes take off after 9/11? I remember seeing fighter jets in the air flying around. we have already started getting lax again, and it will get more so. Remember the cops at the bridges and tunnels? People generally just will not put up with the hassle of added security. Do you know how much those 5 days when we werent allowing flights to take place after 9/11 hurt the economy? They cant just "suspend" all flights on a speculation of what might happen. If they did, it would accomplish just what the terrorists want, which is to bankrupt us.

<center>
http://www.osirusonline.com/sr71.gif </center>


<center><B>My Thanks to Reefdwella for the sig-pic!</B></center>

<center><B><strike>Folgers and Lava</strike></B></center>

<marquee behavior=alternate><font size=1>( o Y o )</marquee>

[high fly]

I disagree, partially.
Heads haven't rolled, and whose responsibility is that?

Ever heard of Kimmel and Short?

This administration had general and specific warnings and did not get the job done as far as their duty to the American people.

Part of leadership is in setting a tone and getting an organization motivated and working to achieve certain results.
At the least, Condo Rice was asleep at the switch.
Whoever in the FBI stalled or prevented the investigation that should have taken place after that warning from the Phoenix agent should be canned.
Whoever was lackadaisical at the CIA should be canned as well.


Again, look at the headline: "9-11 Chair: Attacks Were Preventable".

" and they ask me why I drink"

This message was edited by high fly on 12-18-03 @ 6:26 PM

[TheMojoPin]

Yes, attacks were preventable...if the information had been processed and provided more effectively and correctly. The majority of the blame lays with the CIA, period.

I will agree that you're right that the administration eneds to clean house...but at the same time, we're stuck in an ongoing situation that makes a massive rehaul of that nature impractical.


<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[high fly]

I'm not so sure that they can't clean house.
There are thousands of talented people in the FBI and CIA who can replace the few that must go.

If Condoleeza Rice had any sense of honor about her, she'd step down.





" and they ask me why I drink"

[HBox]

The only thing that pisses me off about this is that there is an indication from Kean that people who failed us that day didn't pay with their jobs. I'm not going to say, before I see this report, that this could have been prevented and Bush should be held accountable for that.

My former history professor gave me one of the biggest reasons 9/11 happened. He said it had to do with the American mentality. Nobody thought, before that day, that airliners could be used for this. The absolute last line of defense, the passengers, didn't even conceive of the airliners being crashed into buildings. They were probably under the impression that the plane was being hijacked for some kind of ransom, and before that day, who would have thought different? The hijackers certainly wouldn't have gone about the plane announcing they were crashing the plane. And that's why the mere threat of boxcutters worked. Nobody thought they were going to die. Once it became clear to the passengers what was happening, it was too late.

That's not going to happen again. American passengers are going to be much more aggressive in the future if anything like that happens on a plane. Unless terrorists can find a way to incapacitate the whole plane, their chances of pulling this off again are remote. Boxcutters certainly won't work again.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[42nd-delay]

I understand people's points aboout hindsight, but if the Republican head of a commission that has been studying 9/11 for months is saying people in the administration messed up, I'm willing to believe him.

The fact that the commission has had to fight tooth and nail to get documents from the White House and various departments and agencies suggests there's something to hide.

------------------------------
"42nd-delay is the only person who's making sense." - Ron, 3-12-02

[smeagol]

Bin Laden is the only one who could've prevented it, but I bet he slept like a baby on 9/10, dreaming of glory.

President Clinton at a business lunch on Long Island in Feb 2002:
hear it for yourself (http://www.newsmax.com/clinton2.mp3)

"Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again they released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

Al Qaeda >1993: Bombing of World Trade Center 6 dead
Al Qaeda >1993: Somalia; 6 dead
Al Qaeda >1996: Khobar Towers barracks, Saudi Arabia 19 dead
Al Qaeda >1998: U.S. embassies in East Africa 224 dead
Al Qaeda >1999: Plot to bomb millennium celebrations foiled, Seattle
Al Qaeda >2000: USS Cole in port in Yemen 17 dead

President Clinton's response after Sept. 11th when asked
"Do you wish you were president now?":
-- "I feel I would be better trained for it, more prepared"

than what? than who?
you had seven years, but, you know, I still can't blame you, President Clinton


to be fair:
Al Qaeda >2001: Destruction of World Trade Center, Pentagon attack. 3,044 dead
Al Qaeda >2002: Tunisia 21 dead
Al Qaeda >2002: Pakistan 14 dead
Al Qaeda >2002: outside American Consulate Pakistan 12 dead
Al Qaeda >2002: Indonesia 202 dead
Al Qaeda >2002: Kenya 16 dead
Al Qaeda >2003: Saudi Arabia 34 dead
Al Qaeda >2003: Morocco 24 dead
Al Qaeda >2003: Indonesia 12 dead
Al Qaeda >2003: Saudi Arabia 17 dead
Al Qaeda >2003: two synagogues in Turkey 25 dead
Al Qaeda >2003: British Bank, and Consulate Turkey 26 dead

murders by Al Qaeda continue, but number of Al Qaeda attacks on US soil since 9/11: zero.
thousands in leadership and ranks of Al Qaeda captured or killed.
we WILL get Osama and the rest, then while they're locked up waiting for the needle, we'll give them this to read as they pass the time:

read it,know it,live it,goodbye. (http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/trainingmanual.htm)

and the war, the global war, the global war on all terror, continues:

wouldn't wanna be ya (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2002/html/19988.htm)

wouldn't wanna be ya either (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2002/html/19991.htm)

each one to be dealt with in it's own special way.

"one by one then it's on to the next"
foo fighters

maybe even two by two, or three by three, or more


Fire Condi Rice?! that is too fucking funny


and, hey, it's time for Saddam's 4:00 pineapple!

This message was edited by smeagol on 12-20-03 @ 3:38 AM

[Yerdaddy]

smeagol, I can't tell what your point is. Don't get me wrong. Your sources are good, but the post is kind of all over the map.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
TEAR THE BITCH APART!

This message was edited by Yerdaddy on 12-20-03 @ 5:54 AM

[high fly]

Fire Condi Rice? That's too fucking funny


I don't find it funny that the president's national security advisor didn't even read CIA reports on the terrorist's threat to the U.S. before 9-11.
After being warned and given plenty of information on the terrorist threat, she apparently did little to address that threat.
Remember, it was she who came out after 9-11 and said no one had any idea that terorists would use planes as weapons, an assertion sharply contradicted by the reports she failed to read.

At the time of 9-11, the White House was so distracted by issues like missile defense, they were putting less time and effort in addressing the terrorist threat warnings they were recieving.

Even though President Bush was not right there, six shooter in hand to roust Saddam out of his spider hole, Bush gets a bump in the polls and some credit for it.
Same with credit for the victory in Afghanistan over the Taliban.
Policies he put into play led to these things and he deserves credit.
By the same token, had he exhibited leadership and let it be known that terrorism was a top priority and he wanted people all through the intelligence agencies as well as the FBI to take positive steps to address the warnings Bush and Rice had been recieving, things might have been different on 9-11.


Oh, and Smeagol, the Khobar Tower bombings apparently were not Al Qaeda, but sponsored by Iran, according to the latest information I've read. Taking it off of your list doesn't affect the point you were making.


" and they ask me why I drink"

This message was edited by high fly on 12-20-03 @ 3:23 PM