Commission chairman - 9/11 Attack was preventable.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: alchemize
I'm quite comfortable that if Gore had been elected, it would have been prevented though

Riiiiiiiiiiight.

Sorry I forget the ;)

Some folks just don't understand that changing the US government is like trying to turn the titanic with a 3 sq ft rudder.

Hmmmm, so I guess we should give up trying to find out what went wrong and perhaps who was responsible? If the government could have prevented 9/11, but didn't, we shouldn't bother trying to determine where things went wrong so we can do it differently next time.

AL QUEDA, BIN LADEN, AND OTHER ANTI-AMERICAN TERRORISTS ARE WHAT WENT WRONG AND ARE THE ONES RESPONSIBLE. Is this hard to understand?

August 6, 2001 Bush receives a memo with the headline "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN THE US". Now that is called a warning that something is up. Why did Bush fail to understand that, and the practically countless other warnings?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Of course 9/11 could have been prevented... then again, so could Pearl Harbor, Oklahoma City Bombing, and every other disaster in this country. Perhaps Bush should be held accountable for those incidents as well... or we could all stop pointing fingers and realize that Bin Laden, Al Queda, and the other anti-American terrorists are the ones responsible.
Exactly. Clinton is as much to blame as Bush and I'm sure if Gore was President it still would of happened. Not at any time have I read where either Clinton or Gore said that if they were President this would have been avoided. Sure there are those in the Bush Administration that screwed the pooch over this but what makes anyone think that Clinton or Gores Administration would have done any better?

 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: alchemize
I'm quite comfortable that if Gore had been elected, it would have been prevented though

Riiiiiiiiiiight.

Sorry I forget the ;)

Some folks just don't understand that changing the US government is like trying to turn the titanic with a 3 sq ft rudder.

Hmmmm, so I guess we should give up trying to find out what went wrong and perhaps who was responsible? If the government could have prevented 9/11, but didn't, we shouldn't bother trying to determine where things went wrong so we can do it differently next time.

AL QUEDA, BIN LADEN, AND OTHER ANTI-AMERICAN TERRORISTS ARE WHAT WENT WRONG AND ARE THE ONES RESPONSIBLE. Is this hard to understand?

August 6, 2001 Bush receives a memo with the headline "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN THE US". Now that is called a warning that something is up. Why did Bush fail to understand that, and the practically countless other warnings?

Probably because no one at the time realized the scope of the upcoming attack, much less the probability that it would even happen. Do you realize how many memos like the one you posted are received by government officials, including the president, every week? The only way to prevent attacks against the U.S. is to get rid of terrorists. As long as terrorists exist and we are a free nation, they will try to attack us.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Of course 9/11 could have been prevented... then again, so could Pearl Harbor, Oklahoma City Bombing, and every other disaster in this country. Perhaps Bush should be held accountable for those incidents as well... or we could all stop pointing fingers and realize that Bin Laden, Al Queda, and the other anti-American terrorists are the ones responsible.
Exactly. Clinton is as much to blame as Bush and I'm sure if Gore was President it still would of happened. Not at any time have I read where either Clinton or Gore said that if they were President this would have been avoided. Sure there are those in the Bush Administration that screwed the pooch over this but what makes anyone think that Clinton or Gores Administration would have done any better?

The fact that there would be no neocon morons in those administrations.

Are you aware that some military numbnuts in the Joints Chiefs once actually planned an operation, a staged Cuban "attack" complete with US casulties, geared towards turning public sentiment to accept a US invasion of Cuba?

Operation Northwoods

Fortunately JFK was sane enough to tell them where to put that plan. Now what would a less astute President have done?
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Of course 9/11 could have been prevented... then again, so could Pearl Harbor, Oklahoma City Bombing, and every other disaster in this country. Perhaps Bush should be held accountable for those incidents as well... or we could all stop pointing fingers and realize that Bin Laden, Al Queda, and the other anti-American terrorists are the ones responsible.
Exactly. Clinton is as much to blame as Bush and I'm sure if Gore was President it still would of happened. Not at any time have I read where either Clinton or Gore said that if they were President this would have been avoided. Sure there are those in the Bush Administration that screwed the pooch over this but what makes anyone think that Clinton or Gores Administration would have done any better?

The fact that there would be no neocon morons in those administrations.

Are you aware that some military numbnuts in the Joints Chiefs once actually planned an operation, a staged Cuban "attack" complete with US casulties, geared towards turning public sentiment to accept a US invasion of Cuba?

Operation Northwoods

Fortunately JFK was sane enough to tell them where to put that plan. Now what would a less astute President have done?

Are you aware that the joint chiefs of staff also advocated bombing an apsiran factory that killed hundreds of innocent children... during the Clinton administration? The list could go on and on, but what good would it do? Probably as much good as your pointless comment.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Boy it took long enough for the conspiracy theorists to come out.

Probably sleeping off last night's mescaline session. Good morning GrGr.

/me waits for the next post about the "saudi flights"
 

kandarp

Platinum Member
May 19, 2003
2,852
0
0
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Of course 9/11 could have been prevented... then again, so could Pearl Harbor, Oklahoma City Bombing, and every other disaster in this country. Perhaps Bush should be held accountable for those incidents as well... or we could all stop pointing fingers and realize that Bin Laden, Al Queda, and the other anti-American terrorists are the ones responsible.
Exactly. Clinton is as much to blame as Bush and I'm sure if Gore was President it still would of happened. Not at any time have I read where either Clinton or Gore said that if they were President this would have been avoided. Sure there are those in the Bush Administration that screwed the pooch over this but what makes anyone think that Clinton or Gores Administration would have done any better?

The fact that there would be no neocon morons in those administrations.

Are you aware that some military numbnuts in the Joints Chiefs once actually planned an operation, a staged Cuban "attack" complete with US casulties, geared towards turning public sentiment to accept a US invasion of Cuba?

Operation Northwoods

Fortunately JFK was sane enough to tell them where to put that plan. Now what would a less astute President have done?

Are you aware that the joint chiefs of staff also advocated bombing an apsiran factory that killed hundreds of innocent children... during the Clinton administration? The list could go on and on, but what good would it do? Probably as much good as your pointless comment.


are u taking about the Al Shifa Factory in Khartoum??? if so, i have yet to read an account that hundreds of children were killed by the attack, or maybe it was as a result of the factory being demolished hundreds of children were killed because they wouldnt get aspirin??? I dont follow if you can send me a link to the figures of hundreds of children getting killed, I researched the Khartoum bombings for a semester in college and couldnt find any accounts similar to that. Thanks
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: daniel1113
AL QUEDA, BIN LADEN, AND OTHER ANTI-AMERICAN TERRORISTS ARE WHAT WENT WRONG AND ARE THE ONES RESPONSIBLE. Is this hard to understand?

Is it possible that you're completely missing the point of the 9/11 Commission? Me thinks so. But hey, feel free to scream your ignorance at the top of your lungs.
rolleye.gif
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
85
91
Originally posted by: GrGr

August 6, 2001 Bush receives a memo with the headline "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN THE US". Now that is called a warning that something is up. Why did Bush fail to understand that, and the practically countless other warnings?

Does the date February 26th, 1993 mean anything to you? Look it up and let me know what action was taken in regards to Bin Laden. Also look up October 12,2000. And again let me know what action was taken in regards to Bin laden.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
Link:

Excerpt:

"BUZZFLASH: Rice has said that Bush was briefed, I believe, on August 6th of 2001 -? if that?s not the exact date, it?s within a couple of days ?- that there might indeed be serious bombings by Al-Qaida in the United States, or hijackings, but that they couldn't predict planes would be flown into the Twin Towers or the Pentagon. Do you have any response to that?

HART: Our commission did not have the resources to give detailed projections as to how, when and where. But the fact is that for two years we had said this was going to happen, and one major step that needed to be taken was to coordinate existing federal assets, particularly our border control agencies -? Coast Guards, Customs and Border Patrol, and Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. We were very explicit about that, and we had been. And that was our first recommendation to the President. And it was that failure to act -? to begin to do that -? that I think permitted this event to happen. No one believes in absolute security. But the goal is to make it as difficult for the attackers as possible, and we had not done that. There had been no ?- to my knowledge -? no major step taken by this administration in the period between January and September to stop these attacks, including coordinating the databases and communication systems of the Board of Control Agency and the INS. Everybody since 9/11 that?s looked at the situation has said the porousness of that system is what permitted these people to do what they did. And the question is: what, if anything, did the administration do between January 31st and September the 11th? And the answer is: not very much.

Now a commission of fourteen people cannot substitute for the federal government of the United States. The President had the power. The President controlled the FBI and the CIA. And when the tragedy happened, no one was fired. Why is that? Why was there no accountability? So instead of pointing the finger at us, and say: well, if you?d just told us they were going to use airplanes, and that the target was the World Trade Center, and it was going to be September 11th, maybe we could have done something. That?s total nonsense."
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
...if I was doing the job...

This is exactly why I knew this "commission" would be a joke. What "job" are you talking about you doing Mr. Kean? Did these so-called "failures" have a history leading you to this conclusion, or are you claiming that because they failed to stop 9-11 you would have not hired them long before the 9-11 attacks? Do you have a crystal ball Mr. Kean? If so, I could use a little investment advice........
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
Originally posted by: Corn
...if I was doing the job...

This is exactly why I knew this "commission" would be a joke. What "job" are you talking about you doing Mr. Kean? Did these so-called "failures" have a history leading you to this conclusion, or are you claiming that because they failed to stop 9-11 you would have not hired them long before the 9-11 attacks? Do you have a crystal ball Mr. Kean? If so, I could use a little investment advice........
"Appointed by the Bush administration, Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, is now pointing fingers inside the administration and laying blame."

You want to be careful trusting a Republican, Corn. They are lying bastards.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Corn
...if I was doing the job...

This is exactly why I knew this "commission" would be a joke. What "job" are you talking about you doing Mr. Kean? Did these so-called "failures" have a history leading you to this conclusion, or are you claiming that because they failed to stop 9-11 you would have not hired them long before the 9-11 attacks? Do you have a crystal ball Mr. Kean? If so, I could use a little investment advice........
"Appointed by the Bush administration, Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, is now pointing fingers inside the administration and laying blame."

You want to be careful trusting a Republican, Corn. They are lying bastards.

That's right - you'll appoint them to investigate your administration thinking that they'll never find anything of substance, but before you know it, they'll be stabbing you right in the back. How dare a fellow republican point fingers at the administration. Everyone knows it's Bin Ladin who's responsible, not the idiots who fell asleep at the switch. Huh? Terrorist what?
 

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
3
81
From Mansoor Ijaz (a Clinton supporter, not some right-winger):

President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.

I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.

From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.

Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.

The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.

As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.

Realizing the growing problem with Bin Laden, Bashir sent key intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996.

The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to "baby-sit" him--monitoring all his activities and associates.

But Saudi officials didn't want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them.

In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.

Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for Al Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden's personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks.

Some of these men are now among the FBI's 22 most-wanted terrorists.

The two men who allegedly piloted the planes into the twin towers, Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, prayed in the same Hamburg mosque as did Salim and Mamoun Darkazanli, a Syrian trader who managed Salim's bank accounts and whose assets are frozen.

Important data on each had been compiled by the Sudanese.

But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February 1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan's religious ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April 1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan's intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI.

Gutbi had shown me some of Sudan's data during a three-hour meeting in Khartoum in October 1996. When I returned to Washington, I told Berger and his specialist for East Africa, Susan Rice, about the data available. They said they'd get back to me. They never did. Neither did they respond when Bashir made the offer directly. I believe they never had any intention to engage Muslim countries--ally or not. Radical Islam, for the administration, was a convenient national security threat.

And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.

The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden's extradition. But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family--Clintonian diplomacy at its best.

Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.
 

ZaneNBK

Golden Member
Sep 14, 2000
1,674
0
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam

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

You want to be careful trusting a politician, Corn. They are lying bastards.

Fixed your post for you.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: ZaneNBK
Originally posted by: Moonbeam

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

You want to be careful trusting a politician, Corn. They are lying bastards.

Fixed your post for you.

No, to moonbeam there is a distinct difference. He's established over and over again that his completely open mind only extends to those who share his opinion.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
Originally posted by: ZaneNBK
Originally posted by: Moonbeam

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

You want to be careful trusting a politician, Corn. They are lying bastards.

Fixed your post for you.
I wasn't writing for myself as I surely agree, but for Corn who needs one step at a time.

 

Miramonti

Lifer
Aug 26, 2000
28,651
100
91
Fact: 9/11 was predicted to occur long before it actually happened.

In fact, even a few in our intelligence agencies were able to predict the whole month of September might unfold as well.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Given Clinton's long game of cat 'n mouse w/ Osama, you would imagine that the Bush administration would have moved immediately on capturing or killing him. Sadly, it doesn't appear they took the threat anymore seriously than Clinton. Too bad.
 

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
3
81
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Given Clinton's long game of cat 'n mouse w/ Osama, you would imagine that the Bush administration would have moved immediately on capturing or killing him. Sadly, it doesn't appear they took the threat anymore seriously than Clinton. Too bad.
True. But invading Afghanistan wouldn't have gone over too well in the pre-9/11 era.
And short of that, I'm not sure how you would expect him to catch him. In fact, we can't even catch him now when we are in Afghanistan.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Shanti
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Given Clinton's long game of cat 'n mouse w/ Osama, you would imagine that the Bush administration would have moved immediately on capturing or killing him. Sadly, it doesn't appear they took the threat anymore seriously than Clinton. Too bad.
True. But invading Afghanistan wouldn't have gone over too well in the pre-9/11 era.
And short of that, I'm not sure how you would expect him to catch him. In fact, we can't even catch him now when we are in Afghanistan.
Given what you're saying, how can anyone claim Clinton didn't do enough?
 

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
3
81
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Shanti
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Given Clinton's long game of cat 'n mouse w/ Osama, you would imagine that the Bush administration would have moved immediately on capturing or killing him. Sadly, it doesn't appear they took the threat anymore seriously than Clinton. Too bad.
True. But invading Afghanistan wouldn't have gone over too well in the pre-9/11 era.
And short of that, I'm not sure how you would expect him to catch him. In fact, we can't even catch him now when we are in Afghanistan.
Given what you're saying, how can anyone claim Clinton didn't do enough?
All Clinton had to do was say "OK, we'll take him".
Bush never had that chance.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Both presidents terribly understimated the man and his group, and share the responsibility. I just hope that this comission doesn't turn into a political witch hunt. Like the OP and others wants it to.

If it turns into a political finger pointing festival, as Kean is already implying, then it has served to do nothing but further weaken our efforts against AQ and OBL.