Could have 9/11 been prevented?

[joevberry3]

How about this? They were training in the States BEFORE Bush took office...so why didnt the Precious Clinton do anything???
Joe

 

[Dr. Zoidberg]

How about this? They were training in the States BEFORE Bush took office...so why didnt the Precious Clinton do anything???
Joe

I don't hold any foolish notions that Clinton's administration doesn't have to take its share of responsibility on this issue.

But hey, Clinton was long gone, just like the WTC and 3000 civilians when those 2 two terrorists were awarded student visas, delivered to the very same flight school that they trained in.

How about that?

 

[oldrooster]

I still dont think, however, really much could have been done up to 9/11.

 

[Ceris]

To prevent it they would have to have had some real specific information.

Such as hindsight!

 

[jameseb]

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

No, nein, nyet, non, notta, not.

 

[daidhaid]

So many seem desperate to believe it was unavoidable.
What is with this?
as if stopping the enemy is a partisan thing.
How can we not envision thwarting these guys.
simple luck on our part could have stopped them.
bad luck on their part could have caused them to fail or give up.
due diligence by any number of law enforcement or security people, might maybe have done the trick.
God's will might have saved the day.
fate or random events.
and oh yes connecting all the known and available info might have done it as well.
it's the cover up that drives this not just the I hate Bush crowd.
if politics and agendas prevent us from absorbing pertinent lessons then what.

 

[joevberry3]

I don't hold any foolish notions that Clinton's administration doesn't have to take its share of responsibility on this issue.

But hey, Clinton was long gone, just like the WTC and 3000 civilians when those 2 two terrorists were awarded student visas, delivered to the very same flight school that they trained in.

How about that?

Ok Dr...Happy to see your not one of those that puts all the blame on the Bush administration.
However, he had NOTHING to do with the 2 student visas...Last time I checked he doesnt hand deliever them to students, and he has no control over everything that goes on here in this country. lol
Joe

 

[Dr. Zoidberg]

Ok Dr...Happy to see your not one of those that puts all the blame on the Bush administration.
However, he had NOTHING to do with the 2 student visas...Last time I checked he doesnt hand deliever them to students, and he has no control over everything that goes on here in this country. lol
Joe

I prefer to speak of the Bush administration then just Bush as a person. The Bush administration, like any other administration before it is responsible for overseeing the INS.

We speak of how 9/11 was completely unpreventable, that Bush's admin did everything in their its to stop it, yet I fail to understand how that can be decided upon when we are still awarding visas to known terrorists registereted at a flight school six months after 9/11.

I think that failure is damaging.

 

[joevberry3]

Actually I dont think anything Bush did could have stopped it or for that matter nothing he did himself in the 9 or 10 months he was in office would have made it happen. This was something that was coming for a period of years...So, actually I put most of the blame if any on the administrations before Bush. Bin Laden and his groupies wanted to attack, some say because of How the States back Israel--I dont necessarily see that as the truth--Remember Clinton did his best to bring peace between Palestine and Israel..Palestine dont want peace..Neither does Bin Laden..

Yeah, I agree something was terribly wrong with known terrorists getting Visa's 6 months after 9/11...But Bush's fault? Nah..His administrations fault? Nah...Maybe the Cia and Fbi? Yes...

Joe

 

[joevberry3]

Remember the FBI had a traitor working for them for years before it was discovered..How damaging was that to their credibility?

Joe

 

[daidhaid]

ok on Bush .
Bush personally couldn't have stopped the terrorists.
Hell he can't do anything that isn't purely political.
The dude couldn't fight his way out of a wet paper bag.
Let alone stop a terrorist with a box cutter.

 

[jimnky]

well why does it really matter.done is done

 

[Grunt]

No, I think to effectively stop the attacks would require you to go back to at least the 80's or early 90's.

Interestingly enough, this was in our paper today: What if Bush attacked Afghanistan Sept. 10, 2001?

I don't support Bush, but I don't think it's at all unreasonable to say that he was damned if he did, and damned if he didn't.

 

[Ampmonster]

two words, bush detractors.

time machine

isnt that what its really all about

 

[Starscream]

Hi joevberry3,

Actually I dont think anything Bush did could have stopped it or for that matter nothing he did himself in the 9 or 10 months he was in office would have made it happen.

I've seen this defense used before. That Bush couldn't have made a big enough impact in the "short time that he was in office". That the transition within the White House takes a long time.

That raises some interesting questions though,

1) Just how much time does a new President need to get on his toes? Obviously 9 months isn't enough by your agurement. How about 11 months? A full year? 18 months? What is the magic number?

2) Would we not have been safer then, had Gore won, considering his changes to the infrastructer would have been minimal?

3) Would we have not been even safer had we have still been under Clinton?

This was something that was coming for a period of years...

Agreed. So what did Bush do to help prevent it?

So, actually I put most of the blame if any on the administrations before Bush.

Why? Under Clinton several key terrorist attempts were thwarted. The Millenium bombing plot quickly come to mind.

Further, do you remember the response from prominent Republicans when Clinton launched an attack on Bin Laden's compound back in 1998?

And even further, why can't Clinton just use the same excuses you award Bush? i.e. "It wasn't Clinton's fault! It was the FBI and the CIA!"

Yeah, I agree something was terribly wrong with known terrorists getting Visa's 6 months after 9/11...But Bush's fault? Nah..His administrations fault? Nah...Maybe the Cia and Fbi? Yes...

The CIA and the FBI? Why?
It was the INS that awarded the visas, and that is the responsibility of John Ashcroft, who was appointed by Bush.

And even if the CIA and the FBI are to blame, how does that resolve Bush of any responsibility?

 

[joevberry3]

I dont take all the blame off Bush--Please post where I have said that..Im simply saying he isnt the ONLY one to blame...Yes, administrations BEFORE him are as much, if NOT more to blame. They had been planning this way before Bush entered Office, correct?
Now, tell me, since your a know it all, What could Bush have done BEFORE 9/11 to prevent this??????? NOTHING!! If he had bombed Afghanistan PRE 9/11 yall would have him impeached!
Hold up...Attackes were thwarted by Clinton? Remember Oklahoma City? Remember the first WTC bombing? Remember the attack on the ship? What did Clinton do???? Those are just a FEW attacks i know off hand...

Joe

 

[Blessed-one]

it's no use placing blame now.. why do people HAVE to place blame all the time? human nature.

wouldn't it be more important to focus on security? all these arguments on how 911 could have been prevented isn't really helping. It digs up old hatred, renews disappointment and anger, and is a great force in creating further division.

 

[jameseb]

it's no use placing blame now.. why do people HAVE to place blame all the time? human nature.

wouldn't it be more important to focus on security? all these arguments on how 911 could have been prevented isn't really helping. It digs up old hatred, renews disappointment and anger, and is a great force in creating further division.

Through all of this I often wonder if that wasn't the intent ~ to create further division. I honestly feel the previous administration has a lot of blame in this (i.e., lobbing cruise missiles at Bin Laden's camps which did nothing more than stir the hornet's nest), but I'm hardly wanting to harp on and on and on about it. Its the past; no one deliberately let down our guard so that terrorist could strike us. As you said, what's important now is focusing on security in the hope we can prevent such an attack ever happening again.

 

[Blessed-one]

no one deliberately let down our guard so that terrorist could strike us.

exactly. As if anyone would really do nothing if they knew down to the fine details of what the terrorists were planning.
Something this big and dramatic.. and kidnapping planes as well... think of all the factors and it isn't that difficult for people to understand that prevention is next to impossible.

 

[jameseb]

exactly. As if anyone would really do nothing if they knew down to the fine details of what the terrorists were planning.
Something this big and dramatic.. and kidnapping planes as well... think of all the factors and it isn't that difficult for people to understand that prevention is next to impossible.

EXACTLY. I wouldn't be surprised at all if another major attack occured... despite all the safeguards and security measures we can take, we can only make it harder for terrorist to hit us, but never impossible to strike us. No matter who's at the helm as President, they shouldn't be the blame for it... you cannot stop those dedicated to finding one of a million ways to attack us.