A Republican appointed by Bush says 9/11 was preventable

[Ateo]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/17/eveningnews/main589137.shtml(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.

"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.
So is Kean now in the same league as Dean, floating despicable rumors about the Bush admin having previous knowlege?

If Jesus came down and criticized Bush, would he be considered a leftist extremist?

a: of course he would.

Bush is God.

[weldordave]

ala FDR had knowledge of Pearl Harbor.
ala LBJ had knowledge of Tet.
And then they all had green eggs and ham in Whosville.

[weldordave]

Hey, Tig! Your and my post both had absolutely NO facts. Yours was more humorous, though.

[Ateo]

no replies from the regulars yet...(must be waiting for the talking points to show up in their inbox :) )

[RosieWolf]

"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.

and how did this woman get access to FBI records?.. and did she also predict that Saddam would murder thousands of his people?.. and if everyone is so sure that it was possible, then why did people continue to fly, continue to work in the towers, continue to marry, have children, and pay their taxes?..

get a grip people.. you can predict the future all you want, but monday morning quarterbacking is just plain stupid... learn what mistakes were made, and LEARN not to do them again.. as best as you can.. but you can not ever predict what a fanatic is going to do..

something should have been 'done' about those boys in colorado who shot and killed their classmates and teachers, but did anyone REALLY see them doing such a horrible thing? you going to blame that on the President too?.. Let's see, Clinton was in office, it must be his fault for not being told that those boys were murderous maniacs about to annihilate half their school. Must be the fault of the FBI, CIA, etc, for not knowing that those boys would pick up some guns they stole from their parents and guardians and go blow away 2 dozen people. And I'm sure it's Clinton's administration's fault that they were not stopped before they acted..

grow up already..

[sinecure]

Originally posted by tigsnort
no replies from the regulars yet...(must be waiting for the talking points to show up in their inbox :) )

Naaah... YOU discount Fox news out-of-hand because of the bias you perceive they have...

Therefore-- I reserve the right to discount CBS-- on equally firm footing-- :wink as a liberal-biased news organization... :p :p

:lol :lol :lol

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by tigsnort
no replies from the regulars yet...(must be waiting for the talking points to show up in their inbox :) ) No. We have lives and you are just not that important.

besides, no where di it say Bush new. It says administration officials did. Wether they told Bush or blew it off is another matter.

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.

remember to use the same logic for this as you do for the WMD. Conecting the dots works both ways so unless there is a specific bunch of document showing Bush knew it was coming{not that it could happen} the you are out of luck.

This is a good example is Bush keeping tenet in office. Bush has a serious character flaw when it comes to loyalty and needing to fire people that are incompetent.

The FBI and CIA werent trading information with each other because they needed to stroke their own egos...

Judges blocking searches...

It was just an all out failure starting from the white house{beginning with Clinton, and endding with Bush} downwards.

commission chairman, former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, has yet to examine key evidence indicating that President Clinton knew Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America but failed to take appropriate action to stop him as the 9/11 operation was being organized.

But key recordings of Mr. Clinton admitting that he turned down an offer for bin Laden's extradition to the U.S. – "though we knew," in the ex-president words, "that he wanted to commit crimes against America" – have not been sought by the commission.

Clinton's comments were videotaped by the Long Island Association, where he made the stunning admission during the group's annual luncheon on Feb. 15, 2002. However, requests for the video later that year by NBC News, the Fox News Channel and NewsMax.com were refused by the business group.

It's not known whether the ex-president had an agreement with the LIA to prohibit distribution of their recording.

NewsMax.com's audiotape of the event is the only publicly available recording of Clinton's remarks.
http://www.newsmax.com/audio/BILLVH.mp3

Now we cant hold him if he has done nothing but if Clinton new he wanted to and especially after the africa bombings, then he is just as culpable.He implemented nothing to stop him and its his cia man thats still in the head chair.

[DustyBottoms]

Originally posted by tigsnort
no replies from the regulars yet...(must be waiting for the talking points to show up in their inbox :) )

Actually he's right! If Clinton had done his job and nailed Osama when we had the chance, none of this would have happened!

[Ateo]

Yes, Clinton had information.

But if I'm not mistaken, during the post-election transition in 2000, didn't Clinton hand Bush intelligence information about Al Qaeda, which Bush didn't bother to read?

[w1che]

Quote from DZ... The FBI and CIA werent trading information with each other because they needed to stroke their own egos...
>>>>>>>>
DZ I agree with most of your post but the quote shown above is a little wrong..

While the Liberals in congress were gutting the CIA they also saw fit to pass a law that the CIA & FBI couldn't exchange information...

What do you think Sin.. Is Tig just baiting us or is he really as brainwashed as his post indicate??

[sinecure]

Originally posted by w1che

What do you think Sin.. Is Tig just baiting us or is he really as brainwashed as his post indicate??

You know, I originally thought he was just putting burrs under saddles here, but as i read more and more of his "stuff", I'm beginning to think he's genuinely serious about these "points" he seems to think he's making. He's uncharacteristically bitter, rancorous and mean-spirited of late. Certainly different from the old Tig that many of us enjoyed a couple of years ago.

Perhaps he's simply disillusioned, now that the Clintons and Gores are not on the front page much these days... pushed-off by GWB's brilliantly-executed media-coups and successes. :clap

...Or perhaps he's in the process of morphing into an "UBER-LIBERAL"!! :eek:

[DEAD ZONE]

Its the pattern of the new Democratic left. The party of hate, depression, gloom and doom with a healthy {politically} side order of fear.
yes w1 they did but as all laws go, whether its enforced and or followed in th bowels of the intel world is another matter.

[DEAD ZONE]

Now they say no high ups are to blame directly. SUCK UPS!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/12/18/232858.shtml

[sinecure]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
Now they say no high ups are to blame directly. SUCK UPS!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/12/18/232858.shtml

No... somebody pointed out the elephant in their living room.:rolleyes:

I love this masterstroke of "a firm grasp of the obvious.": [from the above link]

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. [italics mine]

Kean wanted his "face time" on the national media... he got it, now he should go away. :wave

[Ateo]

Originally posted by w1che
What do you think Sin.. Is Tig just baiting us or is he really as brainwashed as his post indicate??
Once again the pot calls the kettle black :)

W, I can just imagine if the Clinton admin had done everything that the Bush admin has done. Imagine your vitriolic outrage about how Clinton violated federal law, violated the contitution, started an unjustified war of aggression against another country, constantly uses "national security" as an excuse to keep himself and his cronies protected beneath a shroud of secrecy. Imagine your outrage at the fake turkey, the stupid "mission accomplished" stunt. Imagine your outrage at the high-level leaking of a CIA operative in order to silence a vocal critic. Imagine your repetitive, derisive descriptions of Clinton wagging his finger at us and saying "we cannot afford to wait for the ultimate smoking gun--a mushroom cloud". Imagine your seething rage over the fact that Clinton disappeared for a year while serving with the military. Imagine your indescribable disgust over Clinton's out-of-control gov't overspending, and his driving up the nat'l deficit to record levels. Imagine...oh brother, why go on.

If Clinton were Bush wunch, you'd be in a mental institution by now. :lol

[RosieWolf]

If Clinton had been more like Bush.. 9-11 never would have happened, because Clinton knew about obl and saddam-ist and did NOTHING about them.. if he had had them killed back then, we wouldnt still be in Iraq today.

democrats are just as evil as republicans, they are all politicians and i don't trust any of em to actually do what they say they are going to do.. until Bush.. at least he took some action instead of screwing his interns under the desk..

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by RosieWolf
If Clinton had been more like Bush.. 9-11 never would have happened, because Clinton knew about obl and saddam-ist and did NOTHING about them.. if he had had them killed back then, we wouldnt still be in Iraq today.


He didn't have the oppertunity for Osama, and he couldn't justify a full war on Saddam and even if he killed Saddam one of his sons would have stepped in.

[Ateo]

Originally posted by RosieWolf
If Clinton had been more like Bush.. 9-11 never would have happened, because Clinton knew about obl and saddam-ist and did NOTHING about them.. Rosie, Clinton gave Bush the necessary intelligence information about OBL during the transition in 2000--but the Bushies, out of their sheer contrarian "whatever-Clinton-did-we-will-do-the-exact-opposite" attitude, regarded the info as irrelevent. So the onus is on Bush--he has been the president since Jan 2001. He had 9 months to do something about OBL, when it was becoming apparent that some kind of terrorist attack was in the works, and he did nothing. Even after he was notified of the attack he sat on his butt reading a children's book for 20 minutes.

[aclu14]

Originally posted by DustyBottoms


If Clinton had done his job and nailed Osama when we had the chance, none of this would have happened!

If Reagan hadn't played both sides for fools during Iran/Contra, there would be no/insignificant Saddam! No ayatollah! Fewer weapons in the hands of crack-crazed Central Americans!

[Ateo]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
Now they say no high ups are to blame directly. SUCK UPS!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/12/18/232858.shtml Or, maybe some strong-arm tactics were utilized (Rove).

The first report was probably closer to the truth. My guess is Kean got a good spanking by the boys upstairs.

[sinecure]

Originally posted by aclu14


If Reagan hadn't played both sides for fools during Iran/Contra, there would be no/insignificant Saddam! No ayatollah! Fewer weapons in the hands of crack-crazed Central Americans!

Pssst! :::your inexperience and naivete is showing::: :wink

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by AWPrime


He didn't have the oppertunity for Osama, and he couldn't justify a full war on Saddam and even if he killed Saddam one of his sons would have stepped in. Yea right. Lets just avoid calling things what they are. seems to be a euro leftist habit.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?menuId=1589&menuItemId=-1&view=DISPLAYCONTENT&grid=P8&targetRule=#7

"An email has been circulated telling us not to refer to Saddam as a dictator," I'm told. "Instead, we are supposed to describe him as the former leader of Iraq. Apparently, because his presidency was endorsed in a referendum, he was technically elected. Hence the word dictator is banned. It's all rather ridiculous." The Beeb insists that the email merely restates existing guidelines. "We wanted to remind journalists whose work is seen and heard internationally of the need to use neutral language," says a spokesman.

[AWPrime]

And what does that have to do with my post?