Could have 9/11 been prevented?

[Blessed-one]

yeah, and just another point, the terrorists're probably laughing right now. Didn't lift a finger and the americans are fighting among themselves already.

 

[daidhaid]

yeah, and just another point, the terrorists're probably laughing right now. Didn't lift a finger and the americans are fighting among themselves already.

if those guys could laugh they probably wouldn't be terrorists.
if Clinton had got this bunch, others would have followed.
if Bush had made the effort and succeeded apriori, others would have followed.
neither Bush nor Clinton could actually fight an enemy
they are politicians their cowardice preceeds them.
why bother to defend them

it's the policies that America has followed since,,, well who knows how long. Anyway that's what led to this day.
stuff like
Our blind support for Zionism
our addiction to oil
positioning force over the globe
etc

our latest folly
the stupid assertion that terrorism is the enemy

 

[mindlight]

Could 9/11 been prevented? If you think so, how?

Possibly. I think however that the failure to act on the information available to both Democrat and Republican administrations in turn was in part understandable and in part a failure of both Clinton and Bush.

American intelligence has shifted to a model of intelligence gathering that is remote from the actual scenarios it surveys. It is too technology dependent. The human assets that have been employed and especially in the case of Iraq have been notoriously unreliable sources of information as it turns out on WMD for instance. The failures to read the seriousness of the terrorist threat was in part born of arrogance. Last time Bin Laden tried to blow up the two towers he failed so maybe people could not quite get their head around the idea that because he was motivated he would actually try the same again and that his threat was a real one. I think people at the top were too remote from the ways in which what was perceived as a merely tactical threat could actually represent a serious strategic threat to the USA. Sometimes the details matter more than the broad sweep of policy and generalists are not always the best leaders in these situations.

I am glad that America and Britain went into Iraq and deposed Sadam Hussein but embarrassed that the case for this war was argued on the basis of intelligence which on closer examination has proven faulty.

I think a number of lessons come out of 9/11 regarding the prevention of future threats.

1) The way threat assessment is managed needs to be rethought. The information was there but was not collected , collated or analysed properly. There was an óverdependence on technology at the expense of human insight and on secular methodology over spiritual discernment. Highly trained technocrats can still be fools and it seems the wrong people have been promoted to the key positions and it appears they were badly equipped to read the signs of the times and lacked the discernment to distinguish relevant information from irrelevant.

2) Islamic extremist terrorism needs to be attacked at root. High quality human assets need to be trained, recruited, planted or converted to the cause of peace and world stability. Allies need to be recruited in the moderate Muslim world and the cooperation of Muslim governments and peoples sought also.

3) Basic security checks in airports and monitoring of dangerous individuals was also all necessary and has only been introduced since the tragedies.

 

[Starscream]

I dont take all the blame off Bush--

But you put more blame on Clinton. Why? The 9/11 attacks took place under Bush's watch.

They had been planning this way before Bush entered Office, correct?

Correct. Now what did Bush do to prevent them?

Now, tell me, since your a know it all,

That's uncalled for. I'm being polite with you, please show me the same consideration.

What could Bush have done BEFORE 9/11 to prevent this???????

I think it is more a matter of "what did Bush do?". We now know he knew of the threat. He knew Bin Laden was planning hi-jackings. He knew Bin Laden has targeted both New York and Washington. He knew Bin Laden was determined to attack the US (and on US soil despite Condi's assertions to the contrary).

All this is spelled out in the recently released Aug 6th PDB. What actions did Bush take on this intelligence?

What could he have done? Putting the FAA on alert with a list of all known terrorists would have been a great start. Many of the 9/11 terrorists were already known to intel agencies.

NOTHING!! If he had bombed Afghanistan PRE 9/11 yall would have him impeached!

Clinton bombed Bin Laden's compound in Afghanistan PRE 9/11.

Remember the attack on the ship? What did Clinton do???? Those are just a FEW attacks i know off hand...

The Cole attacks were still very fresh when Bush took office. What did Bush do in retaliation?

Clinton bombed Bin Laden's compound in Afghanistan. Do you recall the response that got from prominent Republicans?

Clinton also put the plans in place for the Homeland of National Security. But Bush said that wasn't needed. Why?

 

[joevberry3]

No I dont put all of the BLAME on Clinton..reread my posts..I said the ADMINISTRATION'S with an S. Before Bush...I think over a period of 20 or more years this was coming.(not saying 9/11 had been planned for 20 years) But the actions of the administrations is what cause this.
No, Republicans did NOT cry as much and as loud as the Democrats would have if Bush had attacked Afghanistan BEFORE 9/11...By the way Clinton didnt really attack Afghanistan--what did he do, blow up some sand?
The Aug 6 PDb says NOTHING at all about planes being used for bombs now does it..Let me ask you how do you propose that Bush protect every corner of the States? There is NO way he could have. For that matter, Clinton couldnt have either. But yes, Clinton did have 8 years.

Joe

 

[joevberry3]

Please post where Bush said Homeland Security wasnt needed. Please post a reputable news source, But I already know he didnt say anything even remotely close to that.

Joe

 

[jameseb]

Clinton bombed Bin Laden's compound in Afghanistan. Do you recall the response that got from prominent Republicans?

Possibly because it was just stirring up the hornet's nest? He also destroyed a perfectly legit pharmacutical plant at that. By all accounts, the cruise missile attacks had zero impact on al Qaeda's operations... all it did was stir up their wrath, a wrath that could have been eradicated if we'd put troops on the ground after firing those missiles.

 

[joevberry3]

Great Point James!

 

[Starscream]

Please post where Bush said Homeland Security wasnt needed. Please post a reputable news source, But I already know he didnt say anything even remotely close to that.

Joe

CNN ran an article just last week detailing some of Bush's flip-flops.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/30/bush.reversals.ap/index.html

He argued a federal Department of Homeland Security wasn't needed, then devised a plan to create one.

 

[Starscream]

No I dont put all of the BLAME on Clinton..reread my posts..I said the ADMINISTRATION'S with an S. Before Bush...I think over a period of 20 or more years this was coming.(not saying 9/11 had been planned for 20 years) But the actions of the administrations is what cause this.

But what actions did Bush take prior 9/11 to fight terrorism?

No, Republicans did NOT cry as much and as loud as the Democrats would have if Bush had attacked Afghanistan BEFORE 9/11...

What were the reactions from prominent Republicans regarding the bombing of Osama's compound back in 1998?

Did Bush even have a plan to attack Afghanistan before 9/11? How did Democrats react to that plan? Since when does Bush allow the Democrats to control his actions when it comes to homeland security?

By the way Clinton didnt really attack Afghanistan--what did he do, blow up some sand?

He launched a missile strike on Bin Laden's training camp. Why do you feel that is a bad idea? What did Bush do prior to 9/11 that was more effective?

The Aug 6 PDb says NOTHING at all about planes being used for bombs now does it..

It warns that Al Quaeda is planning to attack New York and Washington using explosives and hijacking. What did Bush do with that intelligence?

Let me ask you how do you propose that Bush protect every corner of the States?

No, I propose that he heeds the warnings coming from different sources regarding terrorism. Do we have any indication prior to 9/11 that Bush had a plan to fight terrorism?

 

[ACougar]

Bush managed to twist the events of 9/11 into a mandate for action in Iraq, image the support he would have recieved for such an action without 9/11.

Possibly because it was just stirring up the hornet's nest? He also destroyed a perfectly legit pharmacutical plant at that. By all accounts, the cruise missile attacks had zero impact on al Qaeda's operations... all it did was stir up their wrath, a wrath that could have been eradicated if we'd put troops on the ground after firing those missiles.

 

[Starscream]

Possibly because it was just stirring up the hornet's nest? He also destroyed a perfectly legit pharmacutical plant at that. By all accounts, the cruise missile attacks had zero impact on al Qaeda's operations... all it did was stir up their wrath, a wrath that could have been eradicated if we'd put troops on the ground after firing those missiles.

My quesiton was:

What was the response from prominent Republicans regarding Clinton's attack on Bin Laden's camp in 1998?

Who was demanding him to follow up with troops?

Since when do Republican's care about stirring up a hornet's nest?

 

[Staind]

I'm going to say no. (Sorry for responding to the original question so late!) I don't think any President would risk the lives of civilians because it would eventually get caught up with him (I mean there would be way more people coming out and saying "Hey something isn't right..."). Richard Clarke probably needed a big push for his book, and I think Condi cleared up any general issues.

 

[Blindfaith]

How about if we just get down to the brass tacks of doing whatever is necessary to prevent it from happening again.

That's more important to me right now. Learn from it, and make any necessary adjustments.

 

[Starscream]

How about if we just get down to the brass tacks of doing whatever is necessary to prevent it from happening again.

That's more important to me right now. Learn from it, and make any necessary adjustments.

Well, well, well. Hello there Blindfaith!



I agree with you 100%, BTW. But part of the learning process is about what we did wrong (all of us: Clinton, Bush, Albright, Condi, everyone) and what we can improve on.

I don't mean to make it sound like all of 9/11 rests on Bush's shoulders. I just want to see his admin admit to making some mistakes, to stop blocking every request of the commission (which, admittedly, they've been doing a better job lately), and help us all move on.

This country is bigger than Bush and bigger than Clinton. Why can't they just swallow some pride here?

 

[Dark Sage]

From what I've seen, there was very little to be done. The best information they had wasn't good enough to act on and the lack of information sharing impaired the intelligence. There was a capture of one of the would-be hijackers before 9-11. It took Clinton four years to realize terrorism is a threat, who thinks Bush could have realized this in less than a year? Bush adopted many Clinton plans like the Iraq regime change and Afghanistan invasion. However, Bush suped things up. Did he do enough? No. Could he have prevented it? Yes. Is it enough of an issue to worry over? No. It's good that it happened because people are now aware of the threat. Bush seems to be doing what Clinton couldn't do or didn't have time to do.

 

[Blindfaith]

Well, well, well Hi Starscream

 

[his excellence]

It will always be a mix of opinions as to yes or no could it have been prevented?. Me personally I believe that some of this comes down to America's Arrogance in going after other nations and believing that the nation is invincible, beyond penetration in some ways. We in fact are a vulnerable as other nations are and unfortunately 9/11 proves that.

 

[his excellence]

Let's look at the two situations: 1. Afganistan- Al-Quaida takes on responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, the US going in with force was justified. Do we have Bin Laden? No is he still a threat YES.
2. Iraq- We go in looking for WMD Find NONE, We apprehend Sadam Hussein and have him tightly locked up and guarded. Granted Mr Hussain needed to be outsted from power, granted he is a man with evil intentions and actions and granted the nation is better off without he or his sons BUT what is the REAL truth of our invasion? Oil?

 

[Satisfied]

Could 9/11 been prevented? If you think so, how?

Absolutely, no doubt about it.

For decades it has been standard protocol for interception of commercial aricraft that have A) lost radio contact with control towers, and B) strayed off course. Usual intercept time is about ten minutes average, fifteen minutes max.

There were fourteen fighter jets stationed in seven different locations on full alert, scramble ready and able to reach the various ariliners within the 15 minutes.

Those fighter jets and their pilots sole job was to be ready minutemen for just such a situation.

There had to be a stand-down order for them all not to follow standard protocol.

If you care to read about these long established norms and procedures, the links below are a start.

This page, describing the available airpower available in the New England area, was removed from the original web site on 9-12-01.

This page gives an outstanding outline of events with links to some pretty damning documentation.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/quickindex/

Satisfied