Kissinger: 9/11 could've and should've been prevented

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Wed Dec 17, 2003 10:39 pm

Well, that would've been the coolest thread title you'd never see.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/ ... 9137.shtml

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
(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.

"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.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who knows exactly what he's talking about, but those are pretty bold statements.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Wed Dec 17, 2003 10:59 pm

Could have, should have, would have.

It's all about the right hand knowing what the left hand is doing. In a government as vast and far-reaching as ours, it's sadly not always obvious. Do I think that we could have prevented it? Even if we knew all of the pieces, it's still ultimately questionable. Would we have shot down a passenger aircraft? Would we have believed they'd turn aircraft into giant, explosive missiles? Would we have actually taken it seriously, in other words?

It was doubtful then, but it's not doubtful today. Part of Bush's War on Terror, in my opinion, was transitioning our federal security bodies from the reactionary stance to the pre-emptive stance. That's a major paradigm shift, but a necessary one if we are to avert inevitable future attacks.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Wed Dec 17, 2003 11:43 pm

"Part of Bush's War on Terror, in my opinion, was transitioning our federal security bodies from the reactionary stance to the pre-emptive stance."

Yes, but depending on what is in this report, beaurocratic mistakes may be to blame rather than the proactive/reactive stance of our security force. This would call into question the paradigm shift made after 9/11. Take the Patriot Act, for instance. Did law enforcement need the powers granted from this legislation in order to prevent this attack, or could the attack have been prevented without such powers?

Anyways, this is neither here nor there until the report comes out.

bash · Post by **bash** » Wed Dec 17, 2003 11:44 pm

At some point along the chain in any historical event, it was preventable. That said, I'm very curious as to where the major mistakes were made. Was it a one in a thousand shot that paid off, could it happen again? Also, you're making an assumption you can't really make saying Kissinger wouldn't have arrived at the same conclusion that everything can be prevented when viewed from the vantage point of hindsight. Frankly, I would think the Clintons would be more nervous about the report than Bush. After all, Bush was in office only a very short time when the attack ocurred. Technically it was on his watch but the security apparatus was mostly Clinton's still.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Wed Dec 17, 2003 11:47 pm

"Also, you're making an assumption you can't really make saying Kissinger wouldn't have arrived at the same conclusion"

Sure, but would Hank blab it to CBS?

bash · Post by **bash** » Wed Dec 17, 2003 11:50 pm

No, but don't get me started on Dan Rather. There was a study that came out today (sorry, read it in passing along the trail and I don't have a link) where six months of news stories from the major network news orgs regarding the administration were analyzed for positive/negative/neutral message and CBS was the highest with almost 80% negative (although don't quote me, I know it was high 70s). NBC was the lowest, IIRC, with about 50/50 positive/negative.

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 1:45 am

It could have been prevented if the Saudi Wahabi factory hadn't produced 15 hate-driven psychotics who thought flying airliners into buildings and killing a bunch of office workers was somehow heroic. Not fully recognizing that Allah apparently digs a good mass murderer who exterminates many "infidels" is probably where our past fault lies. The Religion of PeaceÂ® ... my foot.

melvin · Post by **melvin** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 1:56 am

yeah, muslims suck!

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 2:29 am

Correction, the legion of Muslim extremists suck.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 9:39 am

I fall in the camp of those that would look to stop the perpetrators as the best way to prevent such an act ie; along the lines of what index_html pointed out. After all just stopping the attack wouldn't stop them from another attempt in another place or time...

However, just to entertain the implications of the hindsight commision lets not forget the great divide between 'possible prevention' and the practical application of prevention.

Example: Suppose Bush was smart enough to puruse all the thousands of security details including the reports from previous administrations and discovered the possible plan to use airliners as missiles and also saw that there were suspicious student pilots and he decided "Damn, those arabs *are* going to crash planes into buildings!"

SO WHAT!

Should he have shut down air traffic...for how long...for the whole country or which city...

There is no way any president could have caused all those agencys to cooperate with each other even if he had the foresight to predict the outcome. They are all looking out for their own interest because a victory for one department isn't a victory for another.
The reason for that is those agencies are run by politicians not real civil servants.
The Dept. of Homeland Security was supposed to address that issue, instead it's just another bloated money pit that empowers the government and grows the beauracracy that steps on our freedoms.

The low level of effeciency of our government is appalling but even if greatly improved it will always be full of weak links that can be exploited by determined men.

You guys can try to improve the system, and I hope you win, you'll need a lot of luck making a silk purse from a sow's ear. In the meantime lets at least go get as many of those determined men and their supporters and ship them of to Allah post haste!

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 11:03 am

Actually, it could have been prevented 25 years ago by leaving those countries alone.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 11:10 am

Well, it's true. You don't see people flying planes into the CN Tower or bombing Japan's skyscrapers (sans their own internal yakuza groups). You meddle in the affairs of other countries and you'll not only make allies, but also vindictive enemies.

But that choice was made decades ago. The US is clearly entrenched in other countries of the world as has taken it upon itself to play "police officer of the world." I do think we do a lot of good in this world. Unfortunately, not everyone can come to appreciate it.

And Will's point is my point. Even if Bush managed to put the pieces together, or even if Gore had, I'm certain it still would have happened. Flying planes into skyscrapers was a deviously clever idea that, to my knowledge, had never been executed against us before. Would anyone in the government have believed it? Would they have stopped all air travel that day? Would they have warned all of us, based on a well-grounded hunch? It's doubtful, in my opinion, because the attack was so unprecedented.

In the future, however, things are going to be different. Because now those threats will be taken very seriously, and we can only hope that the uncertainties of this attack will be realized and acted upon the next time.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 12:42 pm

If by "leaving those countries alone" you mean removing funding from Israel, condemning Israel at every opportunity, pushing for Palestinian sovereignty without responsibility, etc. then yes, you may be right, Testi. But if your statement doesn't explicitly include some statement about screwing Israel, well, you can expect the wacky Islamic terrorists to attack us "Zionist pigs" no matter what else we do to their countries. You have to be incredibly naive to think leaving Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or any other non-Jewish country in that part of the world alone would've stopped us from being the main target for terrorists.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 1:01 pm

Why would we be a target? If Carter, Reagan and Bush had not shoved their dicks where they don't belong, all those problems over there wouldn't be our problems. If we didn't sell weapons to Iran, and then sell medicine to Iraq, then give weapons to Afghanistan and watch them use them on local countries instead of Russia, and profit all around from all countries while they are at war..or maybe if we didn't shove our industry down their throats and get them to sign away mineral rights, or reduced profits from drills and mines..or maybe a lot of things. There're plenty of reasons to not like the US, and religion is but one part.

There are plenty of 'Zionist pigs' in other parts of the world, but I don't see them being bothered. I also don't see them meddling in arabic countries' affairs. Everyone else in the world pulls their tankers up to the arabic world, buys oil, and goes home. Not the US, we have to get our fingers in that pie, don't we? I have a really great quote from a US General in the late 60's, I think it was, I'll have to dig that up. I have it at home. It really sums up what this country does to it's lesser neighbors.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 1:15 pm

We would be a target because of Israel. No other nation in the world gives them the level of support we do. I suggest you read up on that. You simply can't talk intelligently about this topic without addressing Israel. The fact that you haven't addressed Israel... well, I'll let you work out the logical implications there.

There are no other "Zionist pig" nations in the world like us -- no others who give the level of support to Israel that we do. The only other nation that's as much a terrorist target as we are is... can you guess? That's right, Israel.

People try to pin this on our involvement in other parts of the world -- but it starts and ends in a little strip of land the size of New Jersey filled with Jews. You can talk all you want about selling weapons or medicine, or bullying for mineral rights, or whatever -- but all of that is trivial compared to Israel, and trying to reduce Israel to "but one part" only means you're ignorant of the terrorists' message. When was the last time you heard a radical Islamic fundamentalist proclaim "death to America, because they sold weapons to Iran!"? Yeah, there are "plenty" of reasons not to like the US, but Israel is far and away the dominant one.

bash · Post by **bash** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 1:29 pm

Testi, you overlook that the entire Arab oil industry was built and financed by Americans (of course the Euros jumped in later when they saw that a buck could be made) and then handed back to the Arabs in the late '40s. Did we make money? Hell yea. Did the Arabs make money? Hell yea. Until we came in and financed the development of their natural resources, they were mostly poor migrant tribes. The US showed them a way toward prosperity, built it, paid for it and then voluntarily turned it back over to them. So are you saying we should have never helped them find and develop their natural resources? And this whole *we sold so-and-so something* and so we are to blame for them using it wrongly is a convenient but faulty route toward overlooking the responsibility the purchaser assumes. Most of our sales of weapons, etc, were designed to keep the power structure in check so that no single country could sweep through the Middle East and control all its oil for themselves. I'd much rather be sitting down with OPEC and it's democratic, multi-national structure than one man (who might look an awful lot like a Saddam Hussein) when it came time to ask that our Winter fuel oil prices be reduced during an economic slowdown. America doesn't like being blackmailed. Isolationism would lead to providing others with the tools necessary to blackmail us, both financially and politically. Look what happened in the late 70s when OPEC became momentarily united in its opposition to the US. We got raped and a Democratic president subsequently was voted out of office because of it. We had temporarily lost control of our own destiny. That is the position our *friends* would like to see us in again. Fu<g>ck that.

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 2:43 pm

There are plenty of 'Zionist pigs' in other parts of the world, but I don't see them being bothered.

Heh, you think the U.S. is the only country radical Islam has attacked or intends to attack? I can dig up examples of Muslim terrorism in numerous European countries, virtually every Asian country, a large number of African countries, not to mention their own countries where Islam dominates. The only variable is scale. Also consider the European report on rampant anti-semetic attacks perpetrated by Muslims that was recently buried, but managed to find its way out. This is hardly a U.S.-only problem. The message of hardcore Islam is:

Non-muslims have three options.
1) Convert to Islam
2) Be subservient to any and all Muslims
3) Be terminated

And they mean it.

Once again, the argument seems to be that the arab world is filled with stupid little children who can't handle the responsibilities of the modern world, and therefore can't be expected to play well with others (the soft bigotry of low expectations). The middle east is largely a place of tyranny, intolerance, and ignorance (pawned off as "culture" by the ruling beneficiaries of those realities) and they typically get a pass on it by the west because of superficial PC concerns. Blaming U.S. involvement in the region is just another scapegoat in a long line of excuses for Islamic insanity which simply serves to prop up those in power (the royal families, the military dictators, the Imams, the Mullahs, etc). In reality, it's those Muslim leaders, both political and religious, that have brought this monster to life. Sticking a Koran in someone's hand and calling it a complete education is where the problem begins. Calling the Koran the official constitution of Saudi Arabia is just downright disturbing. The end result is a horribly narrow worldview and a self-absorbed notion of supremecy that isn't terribly concerned with the ideas or beliefs of anyone outside their rigid ideology. Radical Muslims seem to expect liberty and tolerance elsewhere in the world, but you don't see anything resembling it for "Kufrs" in the motherland of Mecca and Medina. Bin Laden thought it a vile desecration for infidels to exist on Saudi Arabian soil, but the mosques that pepper the U.S. landscape (and rest of the world) are apparently okie dokie. The hypocrisy seems utterly lost on those claiming to speak for Islam.

As the National Chairman of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) Omar Ahmad said in California in 1998:

"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran... should be the highest authority in America. And Islam the only accepted religion on earth..."

Not much gray area there.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Fri Dec 19, 2003 1:45 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
WASHINGTON (AP) - The chairman of a federal commission looking into the Sept. 11 attacks said Thursday that mistakes over many years left the United States vulnerable to such an attack, but he resisted pinning blame on either of the last two presidential teams.

"We have no evidence that anybody high in the Clinton administration or the Bush administration did anything wrong," chairman Thomas Kean said in an interview with ABC's "Nightline" taped for airing Thursday night.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAEFERHDOD.html

For clarification.

bash · Post by **bash** » Fri Dec 19, 2003 2:17 pm

Yea, I read that today. But it didn't prevent CBS from putting out the impression that there was.

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

What liberal bias?

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:42 pm

Sure, I'll agree that the conclusion jumped to seems to show a liberal bias.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:44 pm

Actually, I think a portion of keans finger pointing involve knowledge that planes would be used for terrorist acts. This was ascertained a number of years ago when, I think, a Phillipine insurgent was captured and explained in detail how this would happen. Of course that was back when "The Weiner" was in office so I don't know why Bush has to bear the blame. Additionally after the perpetrators of the original world trade attack were caught, I believe the blind mullah in charge made a comment that the forces behind him would continue to try and level the world trade center. Again this is during "Sperm Job's" tenure. Throw in Clintons inept handling of Somalia, the USS Cole, African embassy's and Sudans 3 time offer of bin Laden...where do you think the real blame lies?

Bold Deceiver · Post by **Bold Deceiver** » Fri Jan 02, 2004 9:55 pm

Kissinger?

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 1:21 am

Kissinger was the first chairman of the commission appointed by Bush. He resigned a week or so later due something like conflicts of interest or didn't want the financial disclosure.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 8:11 am

Look what happened in the late 70s when OPEC became momentarily united in its opposition to the US. We got raped and a Democratic president subsequently was voted out of office because of it. We had temporarily lost control of our own destiny. That is the position our *friends* would like to see us in again. **** that.Bash

A interesting thing I heard on NPR was that during the 70's oil embargo, we had a plan to nuke the arab oil so nobody could use it.
Probably a good thing we didn't as we would all be driving hydrogen powered cars today and the arabs would be trying to decide whether pages from the koran tasted better boiled or sautee'd.

Vander, one of the things the Patriot Act accomplished (supposedly)was the combining of the various intelligence agencies. If I remember correctly there was a female FBI agent who was connecting the dots on the muslim types taking flying lessons, yet her reports were never passed along to where other agencies could assimilate that info with what they may have had. If I was one to lay blame, it would be on the FBI, CIA and NSA for treating their respective offices as fiefdoms not to be shared with others. Hopefully the Patriot Act addresses this.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 4:04 pm

Wood, I think the female agent you are talking about is Coleen Crowley, who worked in Minnesota(on the Moussaoui investigation). The reports you seem to be describing were written by a male agent in Phoenix. The suggested mistake was not that the reports were not shared with other agencies, but within the FBI itself.

I don't think the Patriot Act was passed to address this issue, though I'm sure there are many aspects of it that do. If I'm not mistaken, the Department of Homeland Security was created to better manage interaction between agencies.

Either way, my issues with the Patriot Act do not include changes in the ways agencies share information between them, but rather new powers granted with limited oversight supposedly to be used only in terrorist cases. We have already seen that these powers are being used in non-terrorist related cases.

bash · Post by **bash** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 5:40 pm

Please cite one so I can research it, Jeff.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 5:50 pm

DITTO

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 8:03 pm

Here's one:

http://signonsandiego.com/news/metro/pr ... probe.html

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
LAS VEGAS â?? The FBI used the USA Patriot Act to obtain financial information about key figures in a political corruption probe centered on striptease club owner Michael Galardi, an agent said.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

bash · Post by **bash** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 10:23 pm

I see. There's one incident to date. Well, I guess we'll have our test case coming up. Bet that would be one the Ninth Circuit would love to hear.

I understand your wariness, V, but this quote just struck me as strange...

Civil libertarians have criticized the Bush administration for employing the wide-ranging act to also crack down on drug traffickers and child pornographers.

Say it ain't so. I'm being oppressed!

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 4:31 am

Actually, I remember seeing at least one other incident. This was just the one I found an article for with a quick google. It's hardly someone being held incommunicado at Gitmo for j-walking, but it does show that law inforcement is willing to use their new powers in cases not related to terrorism. As time passes, we will find that law enforcement will be less and less shy about using their new powers in non-terrorism cases.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 8:27 am

"Investigators used a section of the Patriot Act to get subpoenas for financial documents, "

So the Feds still have to go to a judge to get a subpoena. This is not like black clad sturmtroopers kicked in the door and ransacked the place just 'cause the guy was jewish.
I won't be loosing any sleep on this one.