9/11 Attack was Preventable


J C

Well-Known Member
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/17/eveningnews/main589137.shtml

9/11 Chair: Attack Was Preventable

NEW YORK, Dec. 17, 2003


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kean admits the commission also has more questions than answers.

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

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



? MMIII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.

? Feedback ? Terms of Service ? Privacy Statement
 
911 Attackers Trained in Iraq, communicated with Saddam.

(See Saddam Captured thread in small talk forum.)
 



Bart

That has not been confirmed. It has been bandied about by the Bushies and other neo-cons. If we went to war over that issue, we would be fighting in Saudi today. Did you hear the State Dept warning today. I believe the current rationale for the Iraqi invasion is democratization and liberation of the Iraqis. Even Bush has admitted there is no proof of Iraqi involement in the 9/11 attack
 
If we accept that Osama bin Laden was behind 9/11, then it is highly unlikely that the people involved in 9/11 were associated with Hussein. Bin Laden hates Hussein, and he has tried to kill Hussein. Bin Laden hates that Iraq was a secular government. Their common hatred for the US would not have been enough to get them to work together.

Thus, if Saddam was involved in 9/11, then that means that Bin Laden wasn't.

We know that Bin Laden was involved in 9/11. Bush admitted that Hussein was not involved in 9/11. So why are we in Iraq?

If it is because of WMD, then why not Syria, Iran, N. Korea, Israel, Pakistan, and India?

If it is terror (already disproved above), then why not Pakistan (who are harbouring bin Laden), Saudi Arabia, Syria, et al.

If it is to spread democracy, then why did we invade one of the two sovereign nations in the area that had a secular government? Why aren't we initiating regime changes throughout the rest of the Middle East? If Afghanistan was about the treatment of women, then why don't we go after Saudi Arabia for the same reason, for example?

Maybe it's because all of the reasons that Bush and the neo-cons have given us are not the real reasons.
 
Back
Top