9/11 Chair: Attack Was Preventable

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 17 2003 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel
No, I'm not kiddin. He was runnin scared like the coward he is. ANd he should be BLAMED for 9-11! Read this thread!

www.belowtopsecret.com...


so colonel now i understand you...


you get your info from bull#ers like yourself!




posted on Dec, 17 2003 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Sorry, think I misread your last post Seekerof. I'm a bit pissed and it's 5am here. What I mean to say is that if those attacks that have been prevented since 9/11 were preventable, seeing as how they were prevented, then how should 9/11 not fall under the same preventable category? Do you put it down merely to the 'heightened state of alertness'?



posted on Dec, 17 2003 @ 11:02 PM
link   
This is a bit out of context but the first time most people do something they do make mistakes and repetition makes them better at it.

Frankly I don't care if 911 was preventable because I know who was behind it and why it was done so this is all an academic exercise only to me.



posted on Dec, 17 2003 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Well isn't that lovely. If you like academia here's a book.
I'm sure you'll like it. It's got lots of pictures and it's chewable and washable.



posted on Dec, 18 2003 @ 04:02 AM
link   
kegs

Not a bad retort, at all.

Maybe if Neo had been to address the first Senate Enquiry, a set of costs (pretty minimal actually) and a whole lot of bureaucratic bungling could have been saved...


Has anyone noticed how the timing of announcements to do with the culpability and negligence and complicity of the Bush admin in 9/11 has been timed relative to the "capture" of Saddam Hussein? Has anyone really noticed this? Is it a nice feeling that we put it down to coincidence, and leave it all behind us for the good of America and "peace"?

No. I thought not.



posted on Dec, 18 2003 @ 05:14 AM
link   
Bush lovers and hypocrites:

"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.



US had all the intel, yet you failed to put the pieces together..

Cost: 3000 innocents killed.

This was as much a US failure as it was TERRORIST victory.




posted on Dec, 18 2003 @ 07:58 AM
link   
"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.

Think about it.




posted on Dec, 18 2003 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyIvan

Originally posted by Colonel
Is it time for Bush to go to jail now??????????????????????


[Edited on 17-12-2003 by Colonel]



NO ITS TIME FOR CLINTON TO GO TO JAIL. NEED I REMIND YOU THAT HE HAD THREE CHANCES TO KILL BIN LADEN AND HE SAID "NO" ALL THREE TIMES THEY HAD CONFIRMED LOCATIONS, AND EVERY #ING TIME CLINTON SAID "NO" CLINTO SHOULD GO TO JAIL.
BUSH GOT THE BIN LADEN PROBLEM FROM THE COWARD PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION.

[Edited on 12-17-2003 by KrazyIvan]


That is just plain ignorant. Regardless if you think I'm this partisan pro-Clinton acolyte ( I'm not ), I've clearly concisely and accurately laid this bare - it's a false statement. If you don't want to read it from me, several others have refuted it as well.
This bull# fairytale has to stop & it will be slammed everytime you try to hoist it into debate.
It's idiotic-false-revisionist and not worthy of even you.

Face up to it already:

- Bush was in office
- Bush's people were in place at every level of government
- Bush stopped all investigations into everything Saudi as soon as he took office
- Bush stopped the unmanned drone survalliance of Osam Bin Laden
- Bush scrapped the Hart/Rudman bipartisan report on airline security, as well as the Gore Commission report. despite the explicit language in both, he deemed that a special comittee will be lead by Dick Cheney to review security.......one that did not meet until after 9/11/01
- Bush's team have held back information & stonewalled the investigation at every turn possible....but I guess you think Henry Kissinger was selected to dig deep and uncover #, huh?

People (Bush Apologists) keep asking if 9/11 would have happened if Gore were President. Of course not, no one without the intetion to let a 9/11 type event happen would have let it happen.
Especially if they recommended all the saftey & security upgrades that would have thwarted boxcutter weilding Saudis in the first place several months earlier!!



posted on Dec, 18 2003 @ 12:37 PM
link   
So BT, your basically suggesting that the Clinton Administration passed the threat of and from terrorism to the Bush Administration like it was a 'ticking time bomb' or coined: "passing the buck", and then insisting that instead of the Clinton Administration, the Bush Administration could have prevented 9/11? Did the Clinton Administration have a "soothsayer" working for them when the WTC in 1993 was hit....Oklahoma bombing took place, the Cole incident? Are you claiming and suggesting that the Bush Administration has or had a "soothsayer" to predict 9/11?
Even if the Bush Administration would have had knowledge that 9/11 was going to occur, seems to me that the Bush Administration could not have prevented it. I mean geez BT, the administration lacked the proper security infrastructure at our national airports. In such, that seems like a fairly damning indictment on the Clinton Administration. Question: Wasn't it the 1996 Clinton-Gore Airline Safety Commission that really helped set the stage for 9/11, besides other things like tying the hands of the FBI-CIA....?

I mean you can point out all day long what you say the Bush Administration could have done and didn't do but as par, you hail "It happened under Bush, not Clinton, therefore it is Bush's fault" and then never once mention what the previous Clinton Administration could have done..............may I?

"Years before the public knew about Bin Laden, Bill Clinton did. Bin Laden first attacked Americans during Clinton's presidential transition in December 1992. He struck again at the World Trade Center in February 1993. Over the next eight years the archterrorist's attacks would escalate killing hundreds and wounding thousands-while Clinton did his best to stymie the FBI and CIA and refused to wage a real war on terror.

Why?

The answer is here in investigative reporter Richard Miniter's stunning expos that includes exclusive interviews with both of Clinton's National Security Advisors, Clinton's counter-terrorism czar, his first CIA director, his Secretary of State, his Secretary of Defense, top CIA and FBI agents, lawmakers from both parties and foreign intelligence officials from France, Sudan, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates, as well as on the-scene coverage from Sudan, Egypt, and elsewhere."

- The new evidence that Clinton knew about Sudan's offers to arrest bin Laden-and why he ignored them
- The never before told story of the Saudi government attempt to assassinate bin Laden
- Why Bill Clinton refused to meet with his first director of Central Intelligence
- Drawn from secret Sudanese intelligence files, the never-before-told story of Bin Laden's role in shooting down America's Black Hawk helicopters in Mogadishu, Somalia-and how Clinton manipulated the news media to keep the worst off America's TV screens
- How Clinton ignored intelligence and offers of cooperation against bin Laden from Afghanistan's Northern Alliance
- How Bill Clinton scuttled a secret offer from the United Arab Emirates to arrest bin Laden
- The 1993 World Trade Center attack-why Clinton refused to believe it had been bombed; why the CIA was kept out of the investigation; and how one of the FBI's most trusted informants was actually a double agent working for bin Laden
- Why the CIA never funded bin Laden-despite the liberal myths
- How Clinton ignored Yemen's pleas for help in arresting bin Laden-in 1993
- The untold story of a respected Congressman who repeatedly warned Clinton officials about bin Laden in 1993-and why he was ignored
- Revealed for the first time: how Clinton and a Democratic Senator stopped the CIA from hiring Arabic translators-while phone intercepts from bin Laden remained untranslated
- How the Predator spy plane-which spotted bin Laden three times-was grounded by bureaucratic infighting."


Link:
www.realdemocracy.com...



No BT, in all realism here, its quite possible that this incident could have been prevented by both administrations and personally, even before the two mentioned.
Please....continue to tell us how 9/11 should have been prevented under the Bush Administration, when in all truth, the blame extends to the previous few. How about tell us what the Bush Administration could have done in 8 months that the Clinton Administration could and should have done in 8 years? Tell us 'who' could have "predicted" that "something might" happen on "some unknown" day? How about inform us also of how Kean is an "old friend" of Mr. Clinton also (hint: Drew University). But, all-in-all, many are still advocating that the Clinton Administration get a "clean bill of health" or a "pass" on this affair? I think not......be I proponent of Bush or an opponent of Bush.


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 18-12-2003 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 18 2003 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Just to be fair, I'll post the latest from ABC:
"Sept. 11 Panel: Sept. 11 Panel: Bush, Clinton Not to Blame
Sept. 11 Commission Chairman Says There's No Evidence to Blame Clinton or Bush Administrations"

Link:
abcnews.go.com...

Excerpt:
"WASHINGTON Dec. 18 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.

Kean said the 10-member National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States has not decided whether to ask former President Clinton or President Bush to testify. He also said that any conclusions about the performance of high-level officials "will be reached when we are finished with our job, not now."





regards
seekerof



posted on Dec, 19 2003 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Pardon me, but haven't some of you who are posting about how our intel should have prevented 9/11 also claimed that the government themselves perpetrated it?



posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 03:02 PM
link   
I still think, that this terrorist attack just had to happen. Too many things were in disorder in the US government, something definately stinks badly. But what is that? No such thing had occured before or after. What was this at all???



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Yes 9/11 could have been avoided. Unfortunatly all you miss guided souls are pointing your finger at the wrong people. All of these ridiculous fantasies about blaming President Bush is becoming laughable.

I cant figure if some of you are just board with your simply existance and yearn for a chance at being the voice of doubt or are really slow-witted.
Does osama bin laden ring a bell ? How about the Clinton Administration ?

Remember President Bush took office January 2001. Bin laden and his demonic followers carried out suicide missions in Sep 2001. Only 8 months after President Bush taking office. Did all of you self proclaimed scholars and analyst forget about the 8 yrs prior to Jan 2001? Wait I bet you didnt like clinton either.

A word of advise ,Dont quit your day jobs!!
You lack the common sense to see when you are being led around by the liberal media like a circus monkey.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 03:46 AM
link   
I really don't think, that either Bush or Clinton was ever involved in these attacks, but I surely think, that the US government had every possible chance to prevent the attacks, as those terrorists were just not perfect. The threat was also clear and well understood. The simple fact was, that those top officials just didn't believe, that such an attack could ever take place against the US... very pity.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Osama and his deviates did carry out the attacks on the US. I would also like to point out that everyone is an expert because we all know hind sight is 20/20. The only possible way these attacks could have been avoided was for clinton to have taken osama out when he had the chance. Instead they chose to look the other way. The gross failure was on the part of the clinton administration, President Bush is having to deal with 8 years of the clinton cowardess. The democrats are so quick to point fingers, only to shadow there neglect.

There is a cover up of the truth, its the democrats concealing there failures to the American people, The did nothing about the terrorist threat but
pointed fingers when it hit home. Now that terrorist are being dealt with they point those same fingers, this time in shame! Ashamed because they were weak and didn't have the guts or the courage themselves!!!


Hind sight is 20/20..........

"I buried 100 million dollars somewhere in the United States, Find it and its yours"!!!!!!!!!

That is all that needs to be said!!!!



[edit on 16-7-2004 by sniper068]



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 03:02 PM
link   
In my country Bill Clinton is only known as "that sex offender"
but I do see, that he did not do what he was supposed to do. I remember the news flow about Bin Laden's growing threat to the USA at that time, e.g. he intended to blow up 12 Boeing 747 planes over the Pacific Ocean, but the plan was recovered. If he did it , the death toll would well over reach the 911 's. I do not understand, that after all this, he did not liquidate that insane fanatic?



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 01:25 PM
link   
It is clear that huge mistakes were made regarding the prevention of the attacks, and the original cause was simple: The US Leadership simply didn't believe that any terrorist group could ever perform an attack like this against the USA. They thought that they are the best, and all others are primitive. Well, they failed.

I still believe that there were way too many Gov't officials (including Bush) who had the chance to prevent the attack, but took it easy.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join