Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 31

Thread: What We Don't Know About 9/11 Hurts Us

  1. #1
    Where is the outrage?? My conservative friends please subsitute Bush for Clinton
    as you read this article. And please be honest with yourself at least.

    Robert Scheer:

    What We Don't Know About 9/11 Hurts Us

    COMMENTARY

    Would George W. Bush have been reelected president if the public understood how much responsibility his administration bears for allowing the 9/11 attacks to succeed?

    The answer is unknowable and, at this date, moot. Yet it was appalling to learn last week that the White House suppressed until after the election a damning report that exposes the administration as woefully incompetent if not criminally negligent. Belatedly declassified excerpts from still-secret sections of the 9/11 commission report, which focus on the failure of the Federal Aviation Administration to heed multiple warnings that Al Qaeda terrorists were planning to hijack planes as suicide weapons, make clear that this tragedy could have been avoided.

    For the last three years, administration apologists have tried to make the FAA the scapegoat for the 9/11 attacks. But it is the president who ultimately is responsible for national security, not a defanged agency that is beholden to the industry it allegedly monitors.

    The terrible fact is that the administration took none of the steps that would have put the protection of human life ahead of a diverse set of economic and political interests, which included not offending our friends the Saudis and not hurting the share prices of airline corporations.

    The warnings provided by intelligence agencies to the FAA were far clearer and more specific than suggested by Condoleezza Rice's testimony before the 9/11 commission when she reluctantly conceded the existence of a presidential briefing that warned of impending Al Qaeda attacks. Rice had dismissed those warnings as "historical," but according to the newly released section of the 9/11 report, an astonishing 52 of the 105 daily intelligence briefings received by the FAA and available to Rice before the Sept. 11 attacks made specific reference to Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

    Given this shocking record of indifference on the part of the administration, it is politically understandable that it tried to prevent the formation of the 9/11 commission in the first place, and then for five months prevented the declassification of key sections of the final report. Commission members, including its Republican chairman, Thomas Kean, stated in the past that there was no national security concern that justified keeping those sections of the report from the public.

    And let's be clear: The failure to fully disclose what is known about the 9/11 tragedy is not some minor bureaucratic transgression. Not since the Soviets first detonated an atomic bomb more than half a century ago has a single event so affected decision-making in this country, yet the main questions as to how and why it happened remain mostly unanswered.

    Even worse, what we do know calls into question our government's explanation that a diabolical international terrorist conspiracy exploited our liberal, naive society. What has emerged, instead, is a portrait of an often bumbling terrorist gang allowed to wreak havoc because the top tiers of the administration were so indifferent to the alarms, which former CIA Director George Tenet described so graphically: "The system was blinking red."

    Had the business-friendly administration put safety first and ordered a full complement of air marshals into the air, over the obscene objections of airlines loath to give up paid seats, nearly 3,000 people might not have died that day. And had the president of the United States taken some time from his epic ranch vacation that August to order a nationwide airport alert, two bloody wars abroad, as well as an all-out assault on civil liberties in this country, probably would not have happened.

    Instead, an administration that resisted spending the tens of millions required to fortify airline security before 9/11 is nearing the $300-billion mark on Afghanistan and Iraq. And declassified documents have unmistakably said the latter had nothing to do with 9/11. Meanwhile, those countries that at least indirectly did, most notably "allies" Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, have been let off the hook.

    Indeed, the 9/11 commission was not allowed to get near that story: It is an unnoticed but startling truth that the basic narrative on the tragedy derives from the interrogations of key detainees whom the 9/11 commissioners were not allowed to interview. Nor were they permitted to even take testimony from the U.S. intelligence personnel who interrogated those prisoners.

    When the truth and governmental transparency are arbitrarily trumped by the invocation of national security, the public is simply incapable of making informed decisions on the most crucial decisions we face starting with whom we elect as our commander in chief.

  2. #2
    cmon man haven't you heard - 9-11 was all Bill Clinton's fault!!! How can Bush overcome 8 years of gross incompetance? he's grossly incompetant himself and actually doing a good job, well that's just too much to expect!! Bush has never done a good job running any organization he has ever been put in charge of and dag-gummit he's not going to stray from what got him there!!

    in fact if anything goes wrong in the future you can rest assured it was all BILL CLINTON's fault!!

    dot-com burst? Bill Clinton's fault
    global warming? Bill Clinton's fault
    unhappy with the way your life is turning out? Bill Clinton's fault
    the wife is banging the milkman? Bill Clinton's fault

  3. #3
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    before I spend my time reading this article where is it from?? It is common courtesy to provide a link or at least name the source.

  4. #4
    yes please if Come Back doesn't have a source for an article it makes it alot harder for him to bash the source and not read the article at all ;)

  5. #5
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Feb 16 2005, 04:35 PM
    [b] yes please if Come Back doesn't have a source for an article it makes it alot harder for him to bash the source and not read the article at all ;) [/b][/quote]
    not at all.....I'm just not a complete hypocrite like yourself.

    While you consider Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity complete hacks (nevermind the fact you continually discount anything from Fox) you take at face value an article from a Bush-hating site such as the one posted above (already did a search- the morons are still *****ing the election was invalid) as valid...pretty pathetic.

    BTW: Why doesn't this site mention how Al Gore glossed over the reccomendations his commission put forth about improvements needed in airport security three years before 9-11 which may have prevented it??? Why doesn't disinfo.com slam the media for not looking into that??

  6. #6
    Sorry CBNY,

    It was from today's LA Times. A paper with more liberal news slant.

    Here is the link -

    [url=http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-scheer15feb15,1,4862620.column?coll=la-home-food&ctrack=1&cset=true]http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/o...ack=1&cset=true[/url]

    Again, it is the substance of the article not the source that is truly relevant.

  7. #7
    Please, the idiots who vote for Bush vote for Bush blindly, Bush could come right out and say " I am sorry I was at fault for the attacks on 9/11", then follow it with "But I am still against Abortion and less taxes for the rich" and the idiots who vote for Bush will still vote for him....

    And there is plenty of evidence to show that Bush's adminstration not only had knowledge of the attacks or warnings, but he probably wanted an attack to happen, just so he could have a reason to go into Iraq and Afghanistan, and I wouldnt be surprised if the Bush adminstration would allow an attack of Weapons of Mass Destruction in this country as there way of saying "See I told you these threats are real, now we must go into Iran, Syria and North Korea"

    Bush and his adminstration are cancers to this world, I just hope the day comes when they get the treatment they deserve....

  8. #8
    [quote][i]Originally posted by JetsMetsIsles[/i]@Feb 16 2005, 07:19 PM
    [b] Please, the idiots who vote for Bush vote for Bush blindly, Bush could come right out and say " I am sorry I was at fault for the attacks on 9/11", then follow it with "But I am still against Abortion and less taxes for the rich" and the idiots who vote for Bush will still vote for him....

    And there is plenty of evidence to show that Bush's adminstration not only had knowledge of the attacks or warnings, but he probably wanted an attack to happen, just so he could have a reason to go into Iraq and Afghanistan, and I wouldnt be surprised if the Bush adminstration would allow an attack of Weapons of Mass Destruction in this country as there way of saying "See I told you these threats are real, now we must go into Iran, Syria and North Korea"

    Bush and his adminstration are cancers to this world, I just hope the day comes when they get the treatment they deserve.... [/b][/quote]
    I have decided against namecalling, all that does is further polarize us.

    I just hope that as this information comes out more and more Americans will begin to wake up and smell the coffee. If not, then I really fear for the future of this country.

  9. #9
    You youngsters aren't familiar with some of these columnists but GJ&H is familiar with all of the old-timers like Robert Scheer, who has been writing this trash since the Reagan administration and probably as far back as the early 70's

    Point being, the second I saw his name at the top of that column I didn't even bother reading it ... cause Robert Scheer is a devout marxist

    In fact, I believe David Horowitz {admitted former marxist} fingered Scheer as one of his former comrades many times

  10. #10
    [quote][i]Originally posted by NYJet94+Feb 16 2005, 05:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (NYJet94 @ Feb 16 2005, 05:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JetsMetsIsles[/i]@Feb 16 2005, 07:19 PM
    [b] Please, the idiots who vote for Bush vote for Bush blindly, Bush could come right out and say " I am sorry I was at fault for the attacks on 9/11", then follow it with "But I am still against Abortion and less taxes for the rich" and the idiots who vote for Bush will still vote for him....

    And there is plenty of evidence to show that Bush&#39;s adminstration not only had knowledge of the attacks or warnings, but he probably wanted an attack to happen, just so he could have a reason to go into Iraq and Afghanistan, and I wouldnt be surprised if the Bush adminstration would allow an attack of Weapons of Mass Destruction in this country as there way of saying "See I told you these threats are real, now we must go into Iran, Syria and North Korea"

    Bush and his adminstration are cancers to this world, I just hope the day comes when they get the treatment they deserve.... [/b][/quote]
    I have decided against namecalling, all that does is further polarize us.

    I just hope that as this information comes out more and more Americans will begin to wake up and smell the coffee. If not, then I really fear for the future of this country. [/b][/quote]
    You are missing the point, most people who voted for Bush could care less about 9/11, that is just something us pathetic liberal New Yorkers have to deal with, all they care about is Bush is for the Bible and against Abortion, that is ALL these Red State Bu****es care about..

    There is a definite seperation gap between the Red Staters and the Blue Staters, and you have all the reason in the world to fear for the future of this country, the Red Staters just dont get it, and as a result the Blue Staters will pay the consequences, when you see someone like CBTNY boost about how most of country voted for Bush, what he is really saying is F U, Bush is our leader and you will just have to deal with it.....

    The United States of America is most definetly f---d.....

  11. #11
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Green Jets & Ham[/i]@Feb 16 2005, 07:27 PM
    [b] You youngsters aren&#39;t familiar with some of these columnists but GJ&H is familiar with all of the old-timers like Robert Sheer, who has been writing this trash since the Reagan administration and probably as far back as the early 70&#39;s

    Point being, the second I saw his name at the top of that column I didn&#39;t even bother reading it ... cause Robert Sheer is a devout marxist

    In fact, I believe David Horowitz {admitted former marxist} fingered Sheer as one of his former comrades many times [/b][/quote]
    I&#39;m 46 going on 47. If that qualifies me as a youngster... cool&#33;

    I don&#39;t care if Scheer was the anti-christ; that has nothing to do with that main points of the article.

    Excerpted from article..

    [b]Yet it was appalling to learn last week that the White House suppressed until after the election a damning report that exposes the administration as woefully incompetent if not criminally negligent. Belatedly declassified excerpts from still-secret sections of the 9/11 commission report, which focus on the failure of the Federal Aviation Administration to heed multiple warnings that Al Qaeda terrorists were planning to hijack planes as suicide weapons, make clear that this tragedy could have been avoided.

    The warnings provided by intelligence agencies to the FAA were far clearer and more specific than suggested by Condoleezza Rice&#39;s testimony before the 9/11 commission when she reluctantly conceded the existence of a presidential briefing that warned of impending Al Qaeda attacks. Rice had dismissed those warnings as "historical," but according to the newly released section of the 9/11 report, an astonishing 52 of the 105 daily intelligence briefings received by the FAA and available to Rice before the Sept. 11 attacks made specific reference to Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

    Even worse, what we do know calls into question our government&#39;s explanation that a diabolical international terrorist conspiracy exploited our liberal, naive society. What has emerged, instead, is a portrait of an often bumbling terrorist gang allowed to wreak havoc because the top tiers of the administration were so indifferent to the alarms, which former CIA Director George Tenet described so graphically: "The system was blinking red."

    Had the business-friendly administration put safety first and ordered a full complement of air marshals into the air, over the obscene objections of airlines loath to give up paid seats, [u]nearly 3,000 people might not have died that day[/u]. And had the president of the United States taken some time from his epic ranch vacation that August to order a nationwide airport alert, two bloody wars abroad, as well as an all-out assault on civil liberties in this country, probably would not have happened.

    Instead, an administration that resisted spending the tens of millions required to fortify airline security before 9/11 is nearing the &#036;300-billion mark on Afghanistan and Iraq. And declassified documents have unmistakably said the latter had nothing to do with 9/11. Meanwhile, those countries that at least indirectly did, most notably "allies" Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, have been let off the hook.[/b]

    I don&#39;t care if you are the most staunch republican/bush supporter; at some point you have to deal with reality.

  12. #12
    I repeat, the source is not credible .. the source is a marxist who has been writing this trash since as far back as I can remember

    Go do a Google of his columns from the 70&#39;s and 80&#39;s and you&#39;ll find he supported the communist vietnamese, the communist Sandanistas in Nicaragua, the communists in EL Salvador, the communists in the Soviet Union, has a long history of being Pro-Castro, called Nixon and Reagan war criminals, and his list of insane charges against Republican Presidents are endless ... cause the man is a whacked out marxist who has the credibility of a house plant

  13. #13
    Sigh, I give up....

  14. #14
    [quote][i]Originally posted by NYJet94[/i]@Feb 16 2005, 04:27 PM
    [b] Where is the outrage?? ...

    COMMENTARY

    ...

    For the last three years, administration apologists have tried to make the FAA the scapegoat for the 9/11 attacks ... [/b][/quote]
    What about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda?

    Fact is, no terrorist attack of this magnitude or scope had occurred anywhere in the world, let alone the US. While those with political axes to grind come up with fantastical conspiracies and razor-sharp shooting Monday morning QB&#39;ing, the emphasis has gone to where it belongs - on making sure it doesn&#39;t happen again.

  15. #15
    [b]come back[/b] there&#39;s no need for snappy comeback i was just kidding around man

    sarcasm doesn&#39;t seem to travel well over the net

    --


    [b]ham[/b]

    it&#39;s true im a youngster -

    but i still have a pretty good bull**** detector

    [b]the truth is a tough mistress - i&#39;ll cut anyone on this board a deal - if you can admit that the war is pretty much a move for energy policy i will agree it was in the best interests of the nation 100%. it would be a real amicable exchange [/b]



    but on the other hand ask me to support a war on "terror" to give Iraqi&#39;s "freedom" and "liberty" i might just dry heave and constrict up like Donovan in the super bowl

    ---

    honestly - and i mean honestly - do anyone believe that war in Iraq is 100% in the best interests of the country - that money could not be spent any better than in democratizing and building Iraq?

    the only way that i can logically justify this war (and i&#39;ve thought about it more than most) is two fold -

    1) our troops are a human shield against terrorism.

    2) we need the oil (and afghanistan&#39;s natural gas pipeline that halliburton is building)... and will need these fossil fuels for the near future.

  16. #16
    [quote][i]Originally posted by sackdance+Feb 16 2005, 08:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (sackdance @ Feb 16 2005, 08:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-NYJet94[/i]@Feb 16 2005, 04:27 PM
    [b] Where is the outrage?? ...

    COMMENTARY

    ...

    For the last three years, administration apologists have tried to make the FAA the scapegoat for the 9/11 attacks ... [/b][/quote]
    What about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda?

    Fact is, no terrorist attack of this magnitude or scope had occurred anywhere in the world, let alone the US. While those with political axes to grind come up with fantastical conspiracies and razor-sharp shooting Monday morning QB&#39;ing, the emphasis has gone to where it belongs - on making sure it doesn&#39;t happen again. [/b][/quote]
    So if you know that your gov&#39;t ignored all the warnings and did virtually nothing to prevent these attacks that is okay with you? I guess the concept of accountability is one you don&#39;t subscribe to.

    Condeleeza Rice basically commited perjury at the 911 hearings when she said under oath, that there was no plan in place to fight Al -Queada. We now know that a detailed plan was given to her by Richard Clarke in January of 2001.

    She said that the August 6 PDB titled Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in U.S. was an "historical document". We now know that there were 52 separate memos or documents from the FAA mentioning Al Queda and Bin Ladin by name.

    (Our President and VP gave unrecorded testimony TOGETHER not under oath, no transcript and no one has a problem with that...)

    No one is saying the attacks would have been prevented but it is damn clear to this monday morning quarterback that we were repeatedly warned an attack was coming and did virtually nothing to stop it.

    How does that sit with you? Did you lose a loved one or friend in any of the attacks? If so, you might have a different view of things...

    By the way today both FBI Robert Mueller and CIA Porter Goss warned at an attack on U.S. is a matter of when not if. By invading Iraq, we have created an new generation of "field tested" , "battle hardened" terrorists who are now setting their sights on U.S. soil. Those are not my words; those are the sentiments of the top law enforcement and intelligence officials in the country.

  17. #17
    The ultimate villains are the muzlim extremists who perpetrated the event.

    Everything else is wussy second-guessing, armchair quarterbacking.

    Don&#39;t ever lose sight of who the REAL bad guys are.

  18. #18
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Feb 16 2005, 06:16 PM
    [b]

    honestly - and i mean honestly - do anyone believe that war in Iraq is 100% in the best interests of the country - that money could not be spent any better than in democratizing and building Iraq?

    [/b][/quote]
    Seems like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, each totalitarian governments, are [i]very, very [/i]nervous that their status quo - a status quo that has fostered international terrorism - is in serious jeopardy because of democracy in Iraq. GWB may have turned a table on these autocrats that would have been inconcievable prior to the invasion of Saddam&#39;s Iraq. Al Qaeda and likewise groups would wither in a society where people have a voice. Perhaps the war will make the US safer. Can you even consider this possibility?

  19. #19
    [quote][i]Originally posted by sackdance[/i]@Feb 16 2005, 07:11 PM
    [b] Perhaps the war will make the US safer. Can you even consider this possibility? [/b][/quote]
    i can.... can you (or any conservative) consider the alternative?

  20. #20
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti+Feb 16 2005, 07:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (bitonti &#064; Feb 16 2005, 07:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-sackdance[/i]@Feb 16 2005, 07:11 PM
    [b] Perhaps the war will make the US safer. Can you even consider this possibility? [/b][/quote]
    i can.... can you (or any conservative) consider the alternative?[/b][/quote]
    I can.

    (fingers crossed)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us