Us Could've Stopped 9/11 Attacks!

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,866
10,653
147
Appointed by Geroge Bush to helm the 9/11 commisson, Republican Tom Kean, after months and months of intensive investigation into the matter, still thinks so:


"The terrorist strikes of Sept. 11, 2001, could have been prevented had the United States government acted sooner to dismantle Al Qaeda and responded more quickly to other terrorist threats, the chairman of the commission investigating the attacks said today, even as the White House sought to dispel the notion that the attacks were avoidable."


I'm not so sure myself, but I do know that invading Iraq was not only not the anwer, but a critical diversion of men and material away from the real war on terror and an instant and enduring Al Quaeda recruiting poster. :|
 

nutxo

Diamond Member
May 20, 2001
6,824
503
126
Originally posted by: Perknose
Appointed by Geroge Bush to helm the 9/11 commisson, Republican Tom Kean, after months and months of intensive investigation into the matter, still thinks <a class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/04/politics/04CND-PANE.html?hp" target=blank>so:</A>


"The terrorist strikes of Sept. 11, 2001, could have been prevented had the United States government acted sooner to dismantle Al Qaeda and responded more quickly to other terrorist threats, the chairman of the commission investigating the attacks said today, even as the White House sought to dispel the notion that the attacks were avoidable."


I'm not so sure myself, but I do know that invading Iraq was not only not the anwer, but a critical diversion of men and material away from the real war on terror and an instant and enduring Al Quaeda recruiting poster. :|

I thought Clarke said it couldnt have been prevented?

 

nutxo

Diamond Member
May 20, 2001
6,824
503
126
Originally posted by: Orsorum
It's all Clinton's fault.


Its everyones fault. The international community should have put an end to this crap long ago.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,866
10,653
147
Originally posted by: nutxo
Originally posted by: Perknose Appointed by Geroge Bush to helm the 9/11 commisson, Republican Tom Kean, after months and months of intensive investigation into the matter, still thinks so: "The terrorist strikes of Sept. 11, 2001, could have been prevented had the United States government acted sooner to dismantle Al Qaeda and responded more quickly to other terrorist threats, the chairman of the commission investigating the attacks said today, even as the White House sought to dispel the notion that the attacks were avoidable." I'm not so sure myself, but I do know that invading Iraq was not only not the anwer, but a critical diversion of men and material away from the real war on terror and an instant and enduring Al Quaeda recruiting poster. :|
I thought Clarke said it couldnt have been prevented?

As I posted, "I'm not so sure myself."
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,855
4,967
136
Originally posted by: nutxo
Originally posted by: Perknose
Appointed by Geroge Bush to helm the 9/11 commisson, Republican Tom Kean, after months and months of intensive investigation into the matter, still thinks so:


"The terrorist strikes of Sept. 11, 2001, could have been prevented had the United States government acted sooner to dismantle Al Qaeda and responded more quickly to other terrorist threats, the chairman of the commission investigating the attacks said today, even as the White House sought to dispel the notion that the attacks were avoidable."


I'm not so sure myself, but I do know that invading Iraq was not only not the anwer, but a critical diversion of men and material away from the real war on terror and an instant and enduring Al Quaeda recruiting poster. :|

I thought Clarke said it couldnt have been prevented?







Uh, what does Clarke have to do with it? This is quoted from Tom Kean.





:confused:
 

nutxo

Diamond Member
May 20, 2001
6,824
503
126
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: nutxo
Originally posted by: Perknose
Appointed by Geroge Bush to helm the 9/11 commisson, Republican Tom Kean, after months and months of intensive investigation into the matter, still thinks <a class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/04/politics/04CND-PANE.html?hp" target=blank>so:</A>


"The terrorist strikes of Sept. 11, 2001, could have been prevented had the United States government acted sooner to dismantle Al Qaeda and responded more quickly to other terrorist threats, the chairman of the commission investigating the attacks said today, even as the White House sought to dispel the notion that the attacks were avoidable."


I'm not so sure myself, but I do know that invading Iraq was not only not the anwer, but a critical diversion of men and material away from the real war on terror and an instant and enduring Al Quaeda recruiting poster. :|

I thought Clarke said it couldnt have been prevented?


It seems many people take the work of Clarke as god






Uh, what does Clarke have to do with it? This is quoted from Tom Kean.





:confused:

 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,696
0
76
ITS DEFINITELY NOT BUSH'S FAULT!

IT'S THE FAULT OF CLINTON, CLARKE, GORE, HILLARY, DASCLE AND ALL THEIR ABORTION SUPPORTING WAYS THAT MADE GOD ANGRY AND STRUCK DOWN THE TWO TOWERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
But IF 9/11 never happened then George would not have been allowed to go to war in Iraq.
 

datalink7

Lifer
Jan 23, 2001
16,765
6
81
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
ITS DEFINITELY NOT BUSH'S FAULT!

IT'S THE FAULT OF CLINTON, CLARKE, GORE, HILLARY, DASCLE AND ALL THEIR ABORTION SUPPORTING WAYS THAT MADE GOD ANGRY AND STRUCK DOWN THE TWO TOWERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You mean the Twin Towers?

:p
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
Thomas H. Kean, chairman of the commission and former Republican governor of New Jersey, said that had the United States seized early opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden in the years before Sept. 11, "the whole story would've been different."
That would be on Mssr. Clinton's watch for those of you who can't read.

and as for the real meat of what Clarke said (not the stuff that fuels the Bush-Haters)

GORTON: Now, since my yellow light is on, at this point my final question will be this: Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25th of 2001, based on Delenda, based on Blue Sky, including aid to the Northern Alliance, which had been an agenda item at this point for two and a half years without any action, assuming that there had been more Predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that that had all been adopted say on January 26th, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?

CLARKE: No.

link to transcript of testimony

read the transcripts for yourself if you didn't hear the testimony. Clarke felt that the Bush administration did not view the world EXACTLY the same way he did. So be it. The real question is would it have made any difference if the Bushies did everything Clarke had told them to do...IN HIS OWN UNSPINNABLE WORD....NO

could the Clinton Administration stopped Al Qaeda...perhaps if they have "killed" it early on, gotten Bin Laden, that's what Keen is saying.

the blame is with Clinton, not Bush.
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
"MADE GOD ANGRY AND STRUCK DOWN THE TWO TOWERS!"

Thank you Jerry Fallwell !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The mechanics of the advisors that first began under Bush - in the first week set the intelligence failure in motion.

'How' you ask ? Here, I'll 'Splain:

Bush came into office with just about ZERO knowkwdge of how the world worked,
and had no substance and technique when dealing with the International Community.

He inherited the core restoration of his fathers failed administration, and surrounded himself with those loyal people who
would not tell him anything except that specific agenda which was prepared and had been entirely pre-conceived.
Inother words - toss out the last 8 years of world history and advances in the world society since daddy left office.
Set the clock back to 1992, the threat was the Soviet union again, just like it had been under Daddy and Reagan.

The staff was comprised of those inner circle 'Yes Men' that had served under the 1980 to 1992 Republican Presidencies, and
they considered Clinton an abomination to their ruling elite, and thought that the loss of their power should have never happened.

With the Political Restoration, and the Coronation of King George the 'W' - came the resurection of Star-Wars, the Anti Balistic Defense Program -
the old returnees perceived that ICBM's were still a threat, and they put all their eggs in that basket - Missle Defense, courtesy of the Carlyle Group,
a weapons procurment company with strong internal ties to the New Bush Administration, and a web of Daddy and his political and financial contacts,
they had to get the contracts - it's good business for the family again, since they were back in charge.

Their tactical and strategic palnning was to face a threat that had become virtually non-existant, and to present to the gullible public a 'Scare Them'
philosophy on the threat of Missles and nuclear warheads that they could convnce the public to go along with their Presidents program, as they had
the majority support of both the Senate and thr House, and could quash any opposition to that.

That's where Condolezza Rice comes in - she was an 'Expert' on the threat from the Soviet UNion, that's what she had been doing before -
and by making her the 'Nasty Defense Advisor' they could continue the line of rhetoric, and the chain of custody of Bush information.
She was chosen to always brief Bush on the constant threat of the Soviet Union, and their ICBM's with Nuclear Warheads.
The day of the 9-11 attacks they cancelled her speech and presentation about the Impending 'Threat of Soviet Missles', and she had effectively
cut off all presentation and debate about the threat of Terrorism, since she was mouthing only that information which Bush desired - Star-Wars.

Bush wanted 'Star-Wars', and that's what they delivered. Anything but Missle Defense was a distraction to Bushes Agenda at that time.
The two people most to blame for the intelligence failure were Rice for not paying attention to what was beig told to her, she stayed on the
pre-conceived message, and Bush for not wanting to hear any new data, he was only wanting to hear 'Star-Wars', which he got.
and all the rest of the staff, including Rice were trying to fabricate anything that they could to Revenge Iraq for Daddy.

Now she has to go before the public and try to place the blame elsewhere, because she dare not implicat Bush, and she shore as hell
is not going to take any portion of the blame herself. This Administration dosen't know what truth OR responsibility is.
It's that simple.
 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,696
0
76
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Thomas H. Kean, chairman of the commission and former Republican governor of New Jersey, said that had the United States seized early opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden in the years before Sept. 11, "the whole story would've been different."
That would be on Mssr. Clinton's watch for those of you who can't read.

and as for the real meat of what Clarke said (not the stuff that fuels the Bush-Haters)

GORTON: Now, since my yellow light is on, at this point my final question will be this: Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25th of 2001, based on Delenda, based on Blue Sky, including aid to the Northern Alliance, which had been an agenda item at this point for two and a half years without any action, assuming that there had been more Predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that that had all been adopted say on January 26th, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?

CLARKE: No.

link to transcript of testimony

read the transcripts for yourself if you didn't hear the testimony. Clarke felt that the Bush administration did not view the world EXACTLY the same way he did. So be it. The real question is would it have made any difference if the Bushies did everything Clarke had told them to do...IN HIS OWN UNSPINNABLE WORD....NO

could the Clinton Administration stopped Al Qaeda...perhaps if they have "killed" it early on, gotten Bin Laden, that's what Keen is saying.

the blame is with Clinton, not Bush.

WE ALL KNOW CLARKE IS A LYING PARTISAN HACK, SO YOU CANT TRUST HIM BECAUSE HES GOT A BOOK. EVEN YOU SAID SO YOURSELF ABOUT CLARKE

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
It's funny no one here actually claims he is lying
I called him a lying partisan hack (see my previous post in this thread). Technically you may be correct, so here you go:
He is lying



STRAIGHT FROM THE SURGEON'S MOUTH

SO YOU'RE CONTRIDICTING YOURSELF.
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
in the first week set the intelligence failure in motion
Oh please!! You're kidding right?

You seem to have left out the 8 years Clinton was in office...what was his policy?

Cut military and defense and intelligence spending to generate a budget surplus,

try to ignore Bin Laden and multiple acts of terrorism against U.S. interests (remembre he sent the FBI (?) to Yemen to take care of the Cole bombing,

send Madeline Albright to dance with Kim Jong Il in Korea, send him fuel oil and food in return for a feel-good agreement which N. Korea immediately ignored (remember Clinton was simultaeously trying to win the Nobel Peace Prize while trying to avoid getting thrown out of office for being gratified by Ms. Lewinsky.

yep..it's all Bush's fault......

even your buddy R. Clarke doesn't believe that (see above)
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
SO YOU'RE CONTRIDICTING YOURSELF.
So what exactly is your point. I am not contradicting myself..it is Mr. Clarke that is doing that. So what is it? Is Clarke truthful in your opinion..in which case Bush could not have done anything to stop 9/11, or is Clarke lying about the Bushies..in which case they did nothing wrong. This is the problem with Clarke's testimony.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Yes, it *may* have been preventable as in the style and fashion it took place but an attack would have happened regardless. The plane hijackings *MIGHT* have been prevented if the "Gore Commission" would have stuck with it's initial finding and recommendations for airport security...but...cash talks;) Anyway - could it have been "prevented"? Quite a loaded question from any angle. Could we have done more to prevent that style of attack - sure. Could we have prevented *ANY* type of attack - no. The terrorist will find a way to terrorize - to that there is no question.

CkG
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
What part of 'intelligence failure set in motion' don't you understand ?

The part where I said that they threw out the 8 years of history that was the Clinton Administration,
they had set up shop just like that had never happened - it didn't count as is wasn't in their agenda.
The 'Intelligence failure continued to manifest itself right up to the Iraq invasion - wasn't what they wanted to hear,
they had to embelish the lack of fact's with 'Creative Revisionist History, where they 'May have misspoken' on a point or two here or there -
like the whole goddamn pack of lies that they presented to the public and to the world community to get their Agenda and their way.

Like the 'Intelligence Failure that continues today, and will continue tomorrow.
It's not the Failure of the Intelligence Comunity, FBI, CIA, and the like,
It's the failure of those at the top who don't have the intelligence to come in out of the rain,
because they are too busy covering thier asses to pay attention to what's going on around them.

Dubya sure as hell dosen't get it, and those who do are apalled with what these pretenders have done.
This inteligence failure is still in progress, failing to use any inteligence on a daily basis.
It all flows downhill from the top.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: nutxo
Originally posted by: Perknose
Appointed by Geroge Bush to helm the 9/11 commisson, Republican Tom Kean, after months and months of intensive investigation into the matter, still thinks <a class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/04/politics/04CND-PANE.html?hp" target=blank>so:</A>


"The terrorist strikes of Sept. 11, 2001, could have been prevented had the United States government acted sooner to dismantle Al Qaeda and responded more quickly to other terrorist threats, the chairman of the commission investigating the attacks said today, even as the White House sought to dispel the notion that the attacks were avoidable."


I'm not so sure myself, but I do know that invading Iraq was not only not the anwer, but a critical diversion of men and material away from the real war on terror and an instant and enduring Al Quaeda recruiting poster. :|

I thought Clarke said it couldnt have been prevented?

No, he didn't.

Clarke was being asked about Predator reconnaissance missions and aid to the Northern Alliance and if *that* had been better, would 9/11 have been avoided. To *that* he answered "No".

That doesn't mean 9/11 was not preventable. All the FBI had to do was to keep an eye on the two people known to be Al Qaeda and who were known by the FBI to be in the country and to send that information up the chain. That was something Clarke had been trying to do...get the FBI to give domestic intelligence information to the executive branch and not treat it as a law enforcement issue.

If you read Clarke's book (as I have been...about 1/2 way through it), you'll see Clarke puts the crux of the blame on the FBI, CIA, and the Pentagon, not any administration in particular.

Clarke's main issue with President Bush is Bush's handling of the war on terror after 9/11. Bush was hell-bent on going after Iraq when we knew Al Qaeda was behind 9/11 and Iran was more implicated in being a sponsor of terrorism against the U.S. (they were behind the Khobar Towers blast)
 

Piano Man

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2000
3,370
0
76
You know how 9/11 could have been prevented? It could have been prevented by us not sh!tting on that part of the world since the 50's. Its Clinton's fault, Bush's fault, Reagans, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Kennedy's, and so on. I don't give a crap about whether or not they could have stopped the planes. The real question is why did they do it, and the answer to that isn't an easy one to digest.
 

nutxo

Diamond Member
May 20, 2001
6,824
503
126
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: nutxo
Originally posted by: Perknose
Appointed by Geroge Bush to helm the 9/11 commisson, Republican Tom Kean, after months and months of intensive investigation into the matter, still thinks <a class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/04/politics/04CND-PANE.html?hp" target=blank>so:</A>


"The terrorist strikes of Sept. 11, 2001, could have been prevented had the United States government acted sooner to dismantle Al Qaeda and responded more quickly to other terrorist threats, the chairman of the commission investigating the attacks said today, even as the White House sought to dispel the notion that the attacks were avoidable."


I'm not so sure myself, but I do know that invading Iraq was not only not the anwer, but a critical diversion of men and material away from the real war on terror and an instant and enduring Al Quaeda recruiting poster. :|

I thought Clarke said it couldnt have been prevented?

No, he didn't.

Clarke was being asked about Predator reconnaissance missions and aid to the Northern Alliance and if *that* had been better, would 9/11 have been avoided. To *that* he answered "No".

That doesn't mean 9/11 was not preventable. All the FBI had to do was to keep an eye on the two people known to be Al Qaeda and who were known by the FBI to be in the country and to send that information up the chain. That was something Clarke had been trying to do...get the FBI to give domestic intelligence information to the executive branch and not treat it as a law enforcement issue.

If you read Clarke's book (as I have been...about 1/2 way through it), you'll see Clarke puts the crux of the blame on the FBI, CIA, and the Pentagon, not any administration in particular.

Clarke's main issue with President Bush is Bush's handling of the war on terror after 9/11. Bush was hell-bent on going after Iraq when we knew Al Qaeda was behind 9/11 and Iran was more implicated in being a sponsor of terrorism against the U.S. (they were behind the Khobar Towers blast)


ack. I didnt mean to start a fight! I actually thought i read somewhere he said it couldnt have been. Myself I blame Clarke personally for the whole thing.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: nutxo

ack. I didnt mean to start a fight! I actually thought i read somewhere he said it couldnt have been. Myself I blame Clarke personally for the whole thing.

I surely hope that's a joke.

Clarke didn't know the Al Qaeda members were in the States...that's the fault of the FBI (and maybe the CIA, too)
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
I think 9/11 could have definitely been prevented had the Bush administration not diverted necessary funds from scientists working to create a time machine. When oh when will politicians learn that the only way to prevent terrorist attacks is through the use of time machines? :disgust:
 

Shad0hawK

Banned
May 26, 2003
1,456
0
0
Originally posted by: Perknose
Appointed by Geroge Bush to helm the 9/11 commisson, Republican Tom Kean, after months and months of intensive investigation into the matter, still thinks <a class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/04/politics/04CND-PANE.html?hp" target=blank>so:</A>


"The terrorist strikes of Sept. 11, 2001, could have been prevented had the United States government acted sooner to dismantle Al Qaeda and responded more quickly to other terrorist threats, the chairman of the commission investigating the attacks said today, even as the White House sought to dispel the notion that the attacks were avoidable."


I'm not so sure myself, but I do know that invading Iraq was not only not the anwer, but a critical diversion of men and material away from the real war on terror and an instant and enduring Al Quaeda recruiting poster. :|

hello perknose. here are some things you seem to not realize.


1. the invasion of iraq was well after 9-1-1. and well after the taliban were on the run.

2. just about anything "could have been prevented" in hindsight. pearl harbor, the great chicago fire, my cousin's car wreck...etc.

3. finding\killing bin laden will not end the war on terror, and will not end al quaeda it will probobly galvanize them.

4. the war on terror is more than a war on alqueda, it is a war on terrorism period.

5. iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism. plus being ex military myself i realize the strategic location alone would make it first on my list aftr taking out the taliban. we now have a huge front open to syria and 2 huge fronts open to iran. 2 more state sponsors of terrorism.

6. a man or small group of men who know the country can easily evade a tremendous search force. put me in the ozark mountains and the entire us army could not find me either.