PDA

View Full Version : 9/11 Chairman Says White House Could Have Stopped Attacks


chongo
12-17-2003, 11:50 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/17/eveningnews/main589137.shtml

9/11 Chair: Attack Was Preventable
NEW YORK, Dec. 17, 2003


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.

To find out who failed and why, the commission has navigated a political landmine, threatening a subpoena to gain access to the president's top-secret daily briefs. Those documents may shed light on one of the most controversial assertions of the Bush administration – that there was never any thought given to the idea that terrorists might fly an airplane into a building.

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," said national security adviser Condoleeza Rice on May 16, 2002.

"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.

The widows want to know why various government agencies didn't connect the dots before Sept. 11, such as warnings from FBI offices in Minnesota and Arizona about suspicious student pilots.

"If you were to tell me that two years after the murder of my husband that we wouldn't have one question answered, I wouldn't believe it," Breitweiser said.

Kean admits the commission also has more questions than answers.

Asked whether we should at least know if people sitting in the decision-making spots on that critical day are still in those positions, Kean said, "Yes, the answer is yes. And we will."

Kean promises major revelations in public testimony beginning next month from top officials in the FBI, CIA, Defense Department, National Security Agency and, maybe, President Bush and former President Clinton.

Lynwood
12-18-2003, 12:02 AM
:(

mr.neezie
12-18-2003, 11:33 AM
i had my suspicions, but damn...def. more than meets the eye......

i guess my theory that the bush administration LET 9/11 happen wasn't too off base. let's hope these new revelations in the investigation of "why 9/11 happened in the first place" are focused on just as much (if not more so) as the capture of hussein, which i still believe is NO reason to re-elect bush.

notknowin
12-18-2003, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by mr.neezie
i had my suspicions, but damn...def. more than meets the eye......

i guess my theory that the bush administration LET 9/11 happen wasn't too off base. let's hope these new revelations in the investigation of "why 9/11 happened in the first place"


Im not sure the blame is going to fall on little bush's admin. It was the previous admin that received info on bin laden and what some of his plans might be, which were blown off as no concern to our country. in fact the problem will probably go all the way back to the administration before that. either way if all this "intelligence" and information was treated as a serious threat in the 90's, then the reports that came from arizona would of been taken much more seriously.
what gets me is the fbi and cia are getting information about different threats each day, every day. with so much information coming in how can they act on all of it. it seems fair to guess that when a threat is brought to the attention of a presidents admin, the first thing that would be done is comparing it to the information that has already been collected about the same type of threat. Its going to be interesting to see where the public testimony goes, looks like somebodies legacy is about to get ruined.

mr.neezie
12-18-2003, 01:52 PM
yeah, ol' billy boy did leave a lot of unresolved issues for georgie porgie to deal with didn't he? but if said warnings were given against such attacks, and thus ignored, why would bush, who criticized much of the policies and manners in which the clinton admin. handled them, why would he do the same thing??

Blue
12-18-2003, 02:33 PM
I find it ironic that they wouldn't act on information they had but DID act on "information" they knew not to be true.

notknowin
12-18-2003, 02:38 PM
I dont think the admin "did the same thing" I think it went something like a fbi agent in arizona came across something that looked like a serious threat from a known enemy to her and sent the information to whoever was next in line, somewhere along the line the same information was treated as info thats been checked into. I dont know if that means its just pushed down the priority chain or ignored all together.
I hope the commision looking into this checks into the events of the day because thats where the bush admin could of been at its shadiest.......

ElighFan
12-18-2003, 02:48 PM
what the fuck is her problem, she lost her husband and so she wants someone to point a finger at

wtf, terrorism happens lady, its not like the shit is easily avoided