9/11 Chair: Attack Was Preventable

J

jones

Guest
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.

"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.

Hm, shouldnt this be all over national media? OH YA! forgot we dont have "liberal" media. Corporatist/Bush Media rocks, good for you guys.
 
He WAS appointed by Bush(Rove). Maybe he made a mistake.


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
A day ago you corporatists(fascists) were calling us looneys for say it was preventable, or that it was allowed to happen by some people.

Gotta remember, your lovely authority PNAC..planned on invading iraq when they could, even urging clinton to do so. I recall one of them saying a major catastrophy like pearl harbor happening would be the easiest way to meet their goal.(ends justify means).
 
I still think you are a looney.

I can only laugh at the fact that you are calling me a 'corporatist(fascist),' when I as a reasonable person who knows the truth about myself can tell that you are way off the mark.

I laugh even harder when your big source is CBS news, a "corporate" news source.

You are nuts.

And besides, this is happening within the administration. The 'PNAC authority' is admitting some things could have been done better. Our effective governing system is checking itself in due time. That doesn't mean anyone willed it to happen, as you are implying, in fact it suggests otherwise. It proves that Bush has anything but the dictatorial control you seem to believe he has.
 
Well, sorry if i offended you. Sorry, thats just what your party is. Not you in perticular or anyone here at all..You leaders(and media are lying to you, mostly not your fault. Republicans today have alot of fascist leanings in MY opinion. Including having NO respect for our democracy(2000).

Big source ? corporate? nooo! well duh, anything less(or more in my opinion) would be disregarded by MANY here as just some leftist propaganda crapo...haha.

If Bush didnt have dictorial control we would already have impeachment hearings!

The media was all over clinton's sex scandal like white on rice. And when a president's whole existance is lie(BUSH) they do nothing but trump up the "america @ war" , "Showdown in Iraq" war propaganda crap.
 
This is an interesting new turn and I'd like to see how it turns out, but I am skeptical as to how major it is. Apparently it's low key enough that we're going to wait another month to hear a full report. For now. The fact that Clinton is going to testify as mentioned in the CBS article tells me that this is going to implicate more than b'43 or the republican party. It will probably be more indicative of a general failing of the government in doling out home security positions, which I'm sure was lax pre-9'11 and yes, even in the Clinton years.

I'm not disregarding that cbs article, it was merely the hypocritical slant that you chose to addend to it. Just type thomas kean into google after this morning and you'll find a bevy of left-wing bloggers doing a double-take over this article about how 'right' the media is, while they link that same corp cbs article. :rolleyes:

As far as corporate media goes, have you ever looked at the campaign donations list of the democratic party? Here, this watchdog is paid for by the dnc:
The democratic party was largely funded by AT LEAST five reps. of 'corp.' media in 01-02 election cycle



And here is where your left respectable nonbiased truthtelling bloggers have told us for a YEAR, not to trust anything Kean says, because he's 'just another GOP good ol' boy':

Liberal noncorp news service Counterpunch as of Jan'31 2003 view on Kean
qoute from ^:
_________________________________
Kean, like so many worthies, followed the revolving door out of public service into lucrative sweetheart deals and well-wadded sinecures on corporate boards. One of these, of course, is an oil company--pretty much a requirement for White House work these days. (Or as the sign says on the Oval Office door: "If your rigs ain't rockin', don't come a-knockin'!") Kean is a director of Amerada Hess, an oil giant married up to Saudi Arabia's Delta Oil in a venture to pump black gold in Azerbaijan. (The partnership is incorporated in a secretive offshore "tax haven," natch. You can't expect a worthy like Kean to pay taxes like some grubby wage slave.)
...
Somehow we doubt that worthy Kean will poke very hard at the nexus of intersections between his own business partner, Mahfouz, and the bin Ladens, the Bushes, the Saudi royals, Saddam, the CIA and BCCI. We've only scratched the surface here, but even this cursory glance makes the current world crisis look less like some grand geopolitical "clash of civilizations" and more like a nasty falling out among thieves, with rival mafias--who sometimes collude, sometimes collide--now duking it out for turf, cloaking their murderous criminality with pious rhetoric about freedom, security, jihad and God.
________________________ ______________________
 
I see your point, thanks for replying. All I have to say about Thomas kean is maybe this proves those bloggers wrong in one way. He may have a shred of integrity in him. If he does, next month will be very interesting.
If not, we still have RICO lawsuit and CIA leak investigation (confirmed? traitor in whitehouse) to look forward to.
 
Heh, Im viewing the soft money donations you linked..Just wanted to point out that theres a whole lot of pharmaceutical/oil/weapon contractors giving to republicans, while democrats recieved from unions/worker groups/education.
Guess we're not as far off as i thought, even though I oppose campaign contributions altogether. Seems like some of us have our head on straight.
 
The largest contributing industries in 01-02 were communications, real estate, ambulance chasers and criminal defense lawyers, and insurance. Insurance and real estate generally contributed evenly to both parties. Law firms and communications industries contributed heavily to the DNC. By the number of people that such areas and companies employ , that they represent almost half of dnc funding with donations nearing 10mil per contributor, I just don't believe they were speaking without a special interest.


The Communications industry:


LORAL SPACE & COMMUNICATIONS : chairman Bernard Schwartz
qoute:
CalPERS proudly undertakes "corporate governance actions" against companies it believes to have misbehaved. However, it ignored Bernard L. Schwartz, chairman of Loral Space & Communications - and a major Democratic Party donor. Loral's stock price crashed from $30 a share in 1998 to 30 cents last fall because of poor investments and a Justice Department investigation for illegal technology transfers to China.
[/b]
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dougbandow/db20030211.shtml

A timeline of the technology transfer and dnc donations
http://www.fas.org/news/china/1998/h980618-prc8.htm

1995-2001 campaign donations $4,589k to the dnc, $32k to the gop.

Haim Saban: ceo Saban Entertainment, peddler of "The Power Rangers"
$9,252k to the DNC

Fred Eychanar: reclusive creator of UPN
http://www.chicagotelevision.com/wpwr.htm
$7,387k to the DNC

Stephen Bing:Avid playboy, wannabe screen writer. Produced "Married With Children" and a Judd Nelson movie.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/mojo_400/13_bing.html
$7,075k to the DNC

Steven Kirsch: Infoseek and tech specker
$3,307k to the dnc

Global Crossings: looks like an offshored it company http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3089501
$1,280k to the dnc, $354k to the gop

Robert L Johnson: owner of BET, I think
$1,071k to the dnc

Robert Sillerman: music producer who denies of the importance of free market
his lecture http://www.marietta.edu/~ema/ert/mm/macro24.pdf his company http://sfx-yes.liveonline.net/
$953k to the dnc

Vivendi Universal: or, the french murder dr. Seuss, also a partner with the umg of riaa fame http://www.vivendiuniversal.com/vu/...i_Universal_final_settlement_with_the_SEC.cfm
$780k to the dnc,$222k to the gop

David Shaw: Tech Speculator http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/mojo_400/43_shaw.html
$726k to the DNC $0 to the gop
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Phamaceuticals

I'll assume you are refering to biotech and production of bioproducts, an industry which represents at least hundreds of thousands of jobs, provides medicine, and funds research into improvement of pharmaceuticals.

Thompson Under S. Daniel Abraham http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/mojo_400/1_abraham.html
Thompson Medical Co. http://www.law.harvard.edu/publications/evidenceiii/cases/glaser.htm $1,500k to the DNC

Agvar Chemicals http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/mojo_400/111_varis.html $1,077k to the dnc $5k to the gop


PhRMA http://www.phrma.org/ $143k to dnc, $3,249k to the gop
Pfizer http://www.pfizer.com/main.html $188k to dnc, $1,191k to the gop
BMS http://www.bms.com/landing/data/ $160k to dnc, $1,078k to the gop
Pharmacia (recently acquired by Pfizer) $256k to dnc, $1,077k to the gop
Wyeth http://www.wyeth.com/ $136k to dnc, $716 to the gop

___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Energy&Oil

largely waters on both sides of the fence.

While it's true that oil donated to the gop, it's false to say that they expend a major effort, as the combined donations of energy&oil gop donations amounts to less than 4% of their whole campaign fund. This figure goes even lower when you difference their contributions to the democrats.


ADM Co.: Ethanol fuel makers among a variety of agricultural biotech. The Laundromat Story on them is quite interesting.
http://www.admworld.com/eng/fuels/

$901k to the DNC, $1,114k to the gop


*Koch industries: a conglomerate of industries, from die hard, to tires, to propane and aquafina
http://www.kochehs.com/

$0 to the dnc, $914k to the gop

El Paso Energy: is involved in oil drilling and refinement
http://www.epenergy.com/

$155k to the dnc, $715k to the gop


Union Pacific Corp: the railroad industry, but it has a list of lobbying that includes oil royalties
http://www.up.com/

$101k to the dnc, $701k to the gop

Southern Co: Gas, electricity, and wireless telecom
http://www.southerncompany.com/

$306k to the dnc, $694k to the gop


Dominion Resources Inc: A real estate firm in Virgina that mergered with Vepco a few years ago
Has a rather suggestive logo :)
http://www.dom.com/

$250k to the dnc, $693k to the gop

Chevron Texaco Corp: We all know about these guys.
http://www.chevrontexaco.com/

$218k to the dnc, $656k to the gop

___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Weapons

Lockheed Martin : kicks tail
From '95-'02 $1,150k to the DNC, $1,716 to the GOP

Northrop Grumann : more tail
From '95-'02 $302k to the DNC, $906k to the GOP


... Am I missing something?


Another thing to look at is the combined tally at the top of the table. But lets look at the table for all the election cycles from 1995-2002.

Party: Democrat(DNC) : Republican(GOP)
Total: $606,241,428.14 : $659,863,638.59
Diversity: 15,593 : 23,228


The clear implications of this is that the democrats maintained equal funding with half the number of contributors. When combined with the fact that a majority of their budget comes from speculative individuals more than either industries or unions, one has to wonder if their funding represents anyone at all.

The top donor for the dnc in this list is a union. The AFSCME. These are federal employees.'. They get paid with your tax dollars. But they're a union right? So they must be poor and underprivilidged? I guess once again some one is purchasing votes through the mask of a legitimate org, because anyone in a union couldn't possibly have that kind of money to blow. Same goes for the CWA and the SEIU.

On the Carpenters, Automotive Workers, Electrical Workers and Plumber's unions: The stereotype of a 'dittohead' supports the democratic party? They deserve an apology for the DNC's thanklessness. :cof:
 
Heh, you are confusing me. Are you serious?

The clear implications of this is that the democrats maintained equal funding with half the number of contributors. When combined with the fact that a majority of their budget comes from speculative individuals more than either industries or unions, one has to wonder if their funding represents anyone at all.
You may want to take a look at your own party.(Evil doers?)
Expecially your white house, lot of felons and freaks in there. Religious fundementalists. short sighted idealogical views and all.

I know you would like to continue on, believing in what you believe.

Heres the blue pill if you want it, im sure its a good one. Im tuning in also.

http://homepage.mac.com/benburch/HartmanShow-(29-12-2003).mp3

Too tired to weather this chat.
 
Originally posted by jones
_____________________
The clear implications of this is that the democrats maintained equal funding with half the number of contributors. When combined with the fact that a majority of their budget comes from speculative individuals more than either industries or unions, one has to wonder if their funding represents anyone at all.
You may want to take a look at your own party.(Evil doers?)
Expecially your white house, lot of felons and freaks in there. Religious fundementalists. short sighted idealogical views and all.
_____________________ ______________________
Name one and prove your case. We have plenty of time.

Originally posted by jones
_____________________
Heres the blue pill if you want it, im sure its a good one. Im tuning in also.
_____________________ ___________________
Morpheus, that was so '97, as in the big government Clinton administration. I got as far as them endorsing Kucinich and then I fell off my chair laughing and broke my headphones.
 
Jones you are in desparate need of two things, an education and a psychiatrist !

You are a funny little man !:laugh:
 
Let me see if I can get jones's argument straight.

The government (CIA, FBI, DoD, someone) should have done something to prevent 9/11... but we should not be launching pre-emptive strikes on terrorists or nations that support them? In other words, we should have done something then, but we shouldn't be doing something now. How does that work?
 
nbdysfu - name one felon? well theres a confirmed traitor in your whitehouse. CIA leak anyone? Bush-"Well, this is a large administration, alot of top officials, I have no idea who it is."
I dunno who it is. Guessing karl rove. But I know who knows who it is!! BOB NOVAK(pig vomit).

Gop_jeff - We where handling the threat very well back then. We dont need to goto war with nations that we arent even sure support terrorism. Al queda is the threat, they've been sorta contained before 9/11. Yes we should do alot to destroy them now. but not goto war w/ random mideast nations.Making MORE death and destruction than alquada ever did. Oh man if only you knew how much this fiasco has fueled the jihad against us. They are a much bigger threat now that we've sought our revenge. They are multi continent terrorist organization. Not a group of guys in iraq getting paid by saddam or some shit.

Bush thinks nukes equals more peace, only one other leader thinks that way, kim jong il(sp?).


Poland is to Hitler as Iraq is to Bush.

Hang em high boys!


Eric-dont personally attack me, if you could refrain that would be great. My communication skills arent superb, woopidy doooo. Get over it.


Oh the blue pill is on right now. I know yer afraid of the truth but give it a shot!
http://www.ieamericaradio.com/listen.asp
 
Originally posted by jones
Gop_jeff - We where handling the threat very well back then. ... Al queda is the threat, they've been sorta contained before 9/11.

Are you shitting me? (pardon the language) Contained to where, three continents and the East Coast? Apparently they were not contained enough to prevent 9/11. Your assertion is laughable. It is only after 9/11 that al-Qaeda started receiving a kick in the

We dont need to goto war with nations that we arent even sure support terrorism. ... Yes we should do alot to destroy them now. but not goto war w/ random mideast nations.Making MORE death and destruction than alquada ever did.

Iraq was not a random nation. The justification for war with Iraq was 12 years of failures to comply with UN resolutions, the probablility of WMDs in Iraq that posed a threat to the US, and a tie between Saddam's Iraq and terrorism. The war in Iraq has always been tied to the GWOT, and for good reason.

Oh man if only you knew how much this fiasco has fueled the jihad against us. They are a much bigger threat now that we've sought our revenge. They are multi continent terrorist organization. Not a group of guys in iraq getting paid by saddam or some shit.

So how is it that you know that the threat is so much greater now? The way I see it, thousands of terrorists are either dead or captured, thanks to the GWOT, which makes America a lot safer. And it's not like most of the Muslim world liked us before. In fact, I dare say that the millions of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan now look more favorably on us for freeing them from the regimes they were under.

Bush thinks nukes equals more peace, only one other leader thinks that way, kim jong il(sp?).

Peace through strength has been around for a long time... Reagan coined that particular phrase, but Teddy Roosevelt believed the same thing ('Speak softly and carry a big stick' sound familiar?)

Poland is to Hitler as Iraq is to Bush.

This is so preposterous (sp?) as to not warrant any reply except this: :laugh: But I'll give it a shot. First, the goal of the Iraqi war (not the justification, see above) was regime change. It was not occupation or annexation. Second, if you were going to draw an analogy to WWII, then you should have used Afghanistan, the first country we deployed to in the GWOT - which we also did not annex or occupy, but have already turned over to the Afghan peoples.

Oh the blue pill is on right now. I know yer afraid of the truth but give it a shot!
http://www.ieamericaradio.com/listen.asp

OK, Neo, anything for those of us at work who can't listen, only read?
 
First off Bob Novak doesn't work for the government. He's A journalist. Here's a decent explanation on the event you are referring to, and I'm afraid it puts the democrats even more in the red on my screen.

Democrats cry traitor to mask their own treachery.

Here's one of your buddies doing a perfect job of mixing his signals

Karl Rove?

Is your case any more substantial than this?

If not, state your case. We have all day.

. . .

You have yet to prove your point. I want facts not chants.

originally posted by jones
We where handling the threat very well back then. We dont need to goto war with nations that we arent even sure support terrorism. Al queda is the threat, they've been sorta contained before 9/11. Yes we should do alot to destroy them now. but not goto war w/ random mideast nations. They are a much bigger threat now that we've sought our revenge. They are multi continent terrorist organization.
__________________

So what are you suggesting, that they performed a mindmeld with the towers and made them fall? Osama obviously went global before you were born. And now, thanks to Iraq, Afghanistan, and UK-American diplomacy, Queda is doomed.
 
Are you shitting me? (pardon the language) Contained to where, three continents and the East Coast? Apparently they were not contained enough to prevent 9/11. Your assertion is laughable. It is only after 9/11 that al-Qaeda started receiving a kick in the

9/11 was preventable , remember? 9/11 commission stonewalled by whitehouse? Have you not read the reports? Al qaedas getting huge boost from this. 70'000 people went through a terrorist camp in Afghanistan recently.




Iraq was not a random nation. The justification for war with Iraq was 12 years of failures to comply with UN resolutions, the probablility of WMDs in Iraq that posed a threat to the US, and a tie between Saddam's Iraq and terrorism. The war in Iraq has always been tied to the GWOT, and for good reason.

What about Isreal? they've also not complied w/ years of failure to comply w/ UN resolutions.

What about us? shouldnt we stop storing chemical and biological weapons? Maybe shouldnt introduce a new nuke to the market and withdraw from nuke reduction.
Heh, we arent even supporting democracy. Now that Bush declaired that they support the one China. Tawain is almost alone against china now. all those nukes and artillary pointing at them. :(


This is so preposterous (sp?) as to not warrant any reply except this: But I'll give it a shot. First, the goal of the Iraqi war (not the justification, see above) was regime change. It was not occupation or annexation. Second, if you were going to draw an analogy to WWII, then you should have used Afghanistan, the first country we deployed to in the GWOT - which we also did not annex or occupy, but have already turned over to the Afghan peoples.

Is this not an occupation? Lets see..

oc·cu·pa·tion ( P )

-An activity engaged in especially as a means of passing time; an avocation.

-The act or process of holding or possessing a place.
The state of being held or possessed.

-Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces.

-The military government exercising control over an occupied nation or territory.

OK, Neo, anything for those of us at work who can't listen, only read?

haha! Its easier for most people if someone sits down and explains it to them. Thoms the man. right click and DL. all you need is mp3 player like winamp.

Democracy zone
 
Originally posted by nbdysfu
First off Bob Novak doesn't work for the government. He's A journalist. Here's a decent explanation on the event you are referring to, and I'm afraid it puts the democrats even more in the red on my screen.

Democrats cry traitor to mask their own treachery.

Here's one of your buddies doing a perfect job of mixing his signals

Karl Rove?

Is your case any more substantial than this?

If not, state your case. We have all day.

. . .

You have yet to prove your point. I want facts not chants.

originally posted by jones
We where handling the threat very well back then. We dont need to goto war with nations that we arent even sure support terrorism. Al queda is the threat, they've been sorta contained before 9/11. Yes we should do alot to destroy them now. but not goto war w/ random mideast nations. They are a much bigger threat now that we've sought our revenge. They are multi continent terrorist organization.
__________________

So what are you suggesting, that they performed a mindmeld with the towers and made them fall? Osama obviously went global before you were born. And now, thanks to Iraq, Afghanistan, and UK-American diplomacy, Queda is doomed.

"BUY ANNE COULTER DOLL!" hahaha. Shes a wretched beast . "contribute to conservtives"I dont read from any place like that. its on my list w/ Weekly:puke:Standard.
 

Forum List

Back
Top