BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean

Subject: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 09:37 AM

I heard this on the BBC 10 mins ago, that Thomas Kean, the 9/11 Commission's chairman has spoken to a BBC journalist, and taking into account all the evidence at their disposal, this is what he is quoted as saying as being the opinion of the Commission.

I have no links to provide; it's not on the BBC website, yet.

But you never know..., the BBC got it wrong once before, right?

Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 09:53 AM

Forgive me for repeating my comments from other thread where you shared this.

Jim, I'll be interested in reading what the Commission says. Maybe it could have been prevented if Ben Laden had been killed or Al Qaeda had been hit harder earlier or if the intelligence services were more like they are in James Bond movies (sorry, trying to lighten the mood). Again, all I said is that Clarke admitted that all the things he recommended combined wouldn't have prevented 9/11.

That doesn't mean it couldn't have been prevented at all, though I suspect we'll discover that it could have been prevented in the same way that Pearl Harbor could have been prevented. If you knew the attack was possible and put up torpedo nets, if the handful of patrol planes had been sent in the right direction instead of ordered south by staff in Washington, if the people manning the new radar sets had properly interpreted their data, and so on. Before Pearl Harbor only a few people in the world believed you could sail aircraft carriers that far and use planes to attack with torpedoes in the shallow harbor. Unfortunately they were Japanese or Americans to low it the military pecking order to have much say. Top brass didn't believe it possible, and it wasn't by the old rules. The attack changed the world and made the new rules obvious in retrospect. In that case, the Top Brass were made scapegoats despite the fact that they were getting contradictory orders and information from all side, all the way up the chain of command. Being obvious in retrospect is very different from being obvious before the fact, of course, so eventually the Top Brass at Pearl were vindicated and the final responsibility shared.

Before 9/11 only a few people had considered using planes as missles...

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Amos
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 10:09 AM

Pearl Harbor could have been prevented readily enough, by simply following the age-old policy that during negoitiations with a hostile nation the place of the fleet is at sea, location unknown. Instead, our mighty Pacific Fleet was all racked up in neat rows in a known harbor. It was not exactly a secret that the Japanese were in desperate straits.

Unfortunately you can't apply that to skyscrapers and terrorist cells. The rules of inter-state war (Cold or hot) go all to hell with distributed networks of underground enemies. This is not news.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 10:17 AM

What's this, Strick?
Damage limitation already?

Maybe 9/11 could have been prevented in the way that 9/11 could have been prevented, Strick. Has that ever occurred to you?

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 10:18 AM

"Pearl Harbor could have been prevented readily enough, by simply following the age-old policy that during negoitiations with a hostile nation the place of the fleet is at sea, location unknown. Instead, our mighty Pacific Fleet was all racked up in neat rows in a known harbor."

Fair enough, but putting fleets to sea for indefinite periods is ridiculously expensive and up to WWII, the US was notoriously cheap when it came to military spending. Remember the films of the first draftees training with wooden guns and shooting at "tanks" that were old cars with ply wood turrent attached? We'd been pushing Japan for over six months and no one expected them to attack Pearl, how long would they have had to stay out. Besides, all the dispatches were expecting trouble futher east closer to Japanese bases of operation, so no one in the chain of command even thought of that.

Amos, you don't think Al Qaeda changed the scale and nature of international terrorism? This isn't the Baader-Meinhof Gang we're talking about or even Libya.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 10:25 AM

"Maybe 9/11 could have been prevented in the way that 9/11 could have been prevented, Strick. Has that ever occurred to you?"

No, just someone who spent several years studing history being realistic. Maybe there is a silver bullet out there, I just don't think it's likely. It's all those conspiracy theories. Too often normal behavior and not anticipating a radical change at all levels is all you need for an explanation.

I'll be happy to read what they say, but any super human, they, should have known or they should have thought won't be sufficient to convince me. Hell, I don't "blame" Clinton for not recognizing that Al Qaeda represented a quantium leap in terrorist activity. I can imagine circumstances through which he could have worked it out and been more effective against them, but it's not surprising that he didn't. He did what seemed reasonable at the time based on experience up to that time.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Amos
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 10:26 AM

I think Al Qaeda changed the scale of terrorist acts. I have no idea how large their association is. I am certain they needed a nation's support somewhere to field the operation, whether Afghanistan or Pakistan.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 10:28 AM

9-11 set new rules of engagement and levels of force internationally.
If terrorism will kill non combatants by turning them into weapons, you can be sure it will be stopped in advance now....The Final Option as it is known in the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Amos
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 10:31 AM

What does that mean, Nameless One?

A

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 10:33 AM

Amos, the difference is that lobing a few crusie missles at them only made Al Qaeda mad. Our previous experience with state sponsored terrorism taught us that you could discourage them if you hit something they valued (in Kaddafi's case, by targeting him).

You do have to have a place to train and base operations, but all dem militia bases in da Southern US proves you don't have to have the nation's cooperation to keep them running.

GUEST, I'll bite, please explain The Final Option as it is meant in the UK. The implications are obvious, but...

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 10:38 AM

You don't blame Clinton for not recognizing that Al Qaeda represented a quantium leap in terrorist activity?
He was the one, who in 1996 said that Al Qaeda was the biggest significant threat of our generation.
And then when he did do anything, he was wagging the dog...

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 10:46 AM

Shooting suspected planes down, I think, Amos.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Pied Piper
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 10:49 AM

Of cause 9/11 could have been prevented,
if
the US had not funded Al Qaeda
the US had not ignored all the UN resolutions against Israel
the US had not supported the economy of Israel
the US had tried to find a solution for the people who's land was stolen by Zionists.
The US made this bed and now we all have to lie in it.
Thank you Uncle Sam.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 11:11 AM

well, isn't hindsight a marvelous thing!

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 11:37 AM

Get real. Terrorism doesn't require massive organizations, and can't be fought effectively by attacking such organizations. WMDs are scary as hell, but not at all necessary for terrorism--9/11 was accomplished with box cutters; Oklahoma City with fertilizer.

I cartainly don't advocate a policy of International appeasement, but one might stop to consider that unilaterally interfering with other nations--no matter how foul their government is--is not apt to lead to friendly responses by the interfered-with citizens.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 12:24 PM

The one thing that made September 11th possible was that the passengers and crews of the planes weren't thinking in terms of the planes being used as missiles.Hi-jacking for them, as for the rest of us, meant being diverted to some strange airport, and maybe the planes might get destroyed after the passengers had disembarked.

In those circumstances, sitting tight and keeping quiet was only the rational thing to do.

Since September 11th, it is impossible for the same scenario to be played out. There will be more atrocities, but never again quite that one.

If the authorities had any reason to think that this new twist on hi-jacking was on the cards, and they failed to let the rest of us know that, that would have been grossly irresponsible, and would have been a major factor in the disaster. And that is the question that needs to be settled.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 01:19 PM

"You don't blame Clinton for not recognizing that Al Qaeda represented a quantium leap in terrorist activity?
He was the one, who in 1996 said that Al Qaeda was the biggest significant threat of our generation.
And then when he did do anything, he was wagging the dog..."

Sorry my point hasn't been clear, Jim. The Clinton administration was confused as to how to deal with Al Qaeda. When treating them like a criminal organization like the Baader-Meinhof Gang didn't work, they tried treating them like terrorist nations. The attacks on Al Qaeda were meant to be retaliatory, not wipe them out. Pin pricks that accomplished very little anyway, particularly given Al Qaeda was warned by senior leaders in Pakistan prior to the attacks. All it did was motivate Ben Laden to order more direct attacks on the US. That wasn't the desired result was it? That's clearly not the way to handle them.

That's the reason the US moved from a policy of containment to one of desctruction in 2001. It just didn't get implemented in time and we were still effectively using the policy from the Clinton years.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 01:23 PM

In other words, 9/11 could have been avoided...

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 01:29 PM

During the period we're discussing, only if the Clinton administration made a fabulous leap of logic it's not fair to expect from them. Worse, if they really had taken after Al Qaeda before their true danger was fully realized, the world, US and Arab would probably seen it as an attack on Islam, not self defense. It would have been much, much harder for Clinton to make a case for the what he would have needed to do both domestically and abroad. Who would have supported invading Afghanistan in 1994? There's such as thing as being right too early.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 01:30 PM

"Wiping out" just wasn't an option then, and it isn't really an option now. Containment, prevention, and above al, avoiding actions thta make it easier to recruit people, those are the strategies that make sense.   The idea that somehow there is a simple solution "kill Bin Laden", or something like that, is a fantasy.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 01:34 PM

in 1994 Algerian terrorists hijacked a french airliner and threatened to crash it into the Eiffel tower. However they werent trained as pilots and could only try to force the pilot to do their bidding, which of course would not work as any pilot would do their best to avoid crashing into buildings.
(eventually french commandos stormed the plane on the ground and killed most of the terrorists)

There was a hijacking incident in Africa in the 90s where an insane man attempted to crash the airliner - the pilot and copilot eventually overcame him but it was close.

the suicide bombing concept came out of Lebanon in the early 80s devised by the Hizbollah as a tactic against Israeli and US targets.

so to put all of these elements together should not have been that difficult - the US has terror think tanks whose job it is to come up with scenarios and work through various responses.


a terror analyst in Vancouver very accurately predicted the idea of using hijacked airliners as missiles before 911, he was even investigated by the CIA afterwards.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 01:39 PM

"There's such as thing as being right too early"

No there's not, Strick. That's a cop out of the highest order. Clinton recognised the threat in '96... he said so almost verbatim to the way I have written it above.
This line... "You don't blame Clinton for not recognizing that Al Qaeda represented a quantium leap in terrorist activity" was me quoting you, remember.
I don't blame Clinton for not recognising the quantum leap.... for the simple reason that he did recognise the quantum leap.

What argument are you defending here? That 9/11 could have been prevented, but 'what the hell, people make mistakes'?

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Kim C
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 01:40 PM

It's easy to quarterback on Monday morning.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 01:46 PM

Yes Kim..., but this is about Friday evening.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 01:46 PM

"I don't blame Clinton for not recognising the quantum leap.... for the simple reason that he did recognise the quantum leap."

OK, have it your way. Why the hell didn't Clinton do something effective about it? All the cruise missle strikes did was cause Ben Laden to be more intent on attacking the US. In effect they prompted 9/11.

Of course you can be right too early -- if no one's ready to believe what you say and you have no proof, you might as well not be right at all. Any good cop knows that. Knowing that someone is a bad guy doesn't matter if you can't do anything about it. You can only tail them so long before their lawyer shout harrassment and then you're worse off than ever.

A good example is the alert Clarke had the US go into in July of 2001. By the time the terrorists attacked in September, the edge had been taken off the alert, parts of the system were showing signs of breaking down and they were looking for the wrong thing any way. What good did it do him to be right?

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 02:00 PM

Strick, it's about as possible to wipe out Al Qaeda as it is to wipe out all asthma. Both are symptoms of bigger problems. You can't kill the symptom in these cases. You can either try to limit them, or you can correct the problems that cause the symptoms.

In the case of Al Quaeda, the problem is caused by the way powerful countries like the US treat weaker countries like Afghanisan. Trying to "wipe out" the symptom in this case will only make it worse.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 03:03 PM

Possibly, Carol, particularly as we know it's organized now.   Assume for the moment that trying to fix the problems would only cause different ones later on. After all supporting the Mujahideen's attempts to drive the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan are part of what got us here as is the US's defense of Kuwait. Ben Laden's prime
motivation for starting all this was the presense of US troops in Saudi Arabia, sacred ground, duing the first Gulf War. By your rules, we can't use force to change their governments, anyway (I'm OK with that) Any non-military attempt at modernization or liberalizaton of governments in the region plays in to Al Qaeda's hands, too. One of their main arguments is that Westernization is diluting Islamic purity and the madrasas are turning out young men who agree with them every day.

Now what? Can't give into their demands. Remember what they want most was putting up Taliban-like states across the region, a situation worse than what we have now. As you said, you can't attack the countries that support them and UN sactions would have the same effect. What's left? Putting the West on alert permanently and violating the civil rights of everyone who is or looks Arab?

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 03:08 PM

"All the cruise missle strikes did was cause Ben Laden to be more intent on attacking the US. In effect they prompted 9/11"

And Afghanistan and Iraq has turned that table, has it?

As to what good it may have done Dick Clarke to be right, probably the satisfaction of knowing that in a way he may have played some part in preventing a catastrophe happening on American soil. Not that he might have known specifically what that catastrophe might have been, mind you; just to be resplendent in the knowledge that his President was on top of the issues in good time.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 03:13 PM

"And Afghanistan and Iraq has turned that table, has it?"

You're the one intent on blaming various administrations when their strategies don't work, not me.

Dick Clarke was right, but he prevented nothing despite the fact that the advice he gave (not what he wished he had given) was followed by both administrations.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 03:42 PM

What we do, Strick, is to try to insert ourselves back into an international consensus. Even if it's no more effectual than the US government has been, it will at least have some degree of legitimacy with the international community. Then, we stop meddling in the affairs of other countries. In all of the cases where the US does intervene, it's always with some sort of expectation of profit (usually for the large corporate entities that helped get those in power in the US government where they are). The US doesn't ever do things for altruistic reasons.

I would suggest that the UN should be supported wholeheartedly by the US government, and that it be restructured so that all member nations have exactly the same rights within the organization as all the rest. No more special priveleges for the more powerful countries like the US. I think that would go a long way toward addressing the underlying problems. And I also think that the US should endorse, and become a member of the international court. We need to make this country accountable for what it does. Only then can we hope to really correct the problems that produce the symptom of "terrorism". (Including the state sponsored terrorism that the US has been engaging in for most of its existance.)

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 03:55 PM

I'd endorse part of that, Carol, but not all of it. I don't think you know what you're asking in those changes to the UN, but it's not going to happen. None of the permanent members of the Security Council would let it happen; they all have too much at stake. Interedsting question: what percentage of your standard of living are you willing to give up to achieve this?

It would be interesting to see what would happen if the US joined the international court. After there is no statute of limitations to the kind of war crimes Bob Kerrey confessed to a few years back.

Jim, I should have answered your first question in that last post. Afghanistan? Yeah, I feel safer. Al Qaeda lost a major base of operations and isn't nearly as effective as it would have been if we hadn't gone in. They were growing faster than they are now and don't were turning out much more dangerous recruits than they are today.   I don't think I can express my feeling toward the Taliban, either. If, as some people say, the Taliban were our fault (wrong, but if), then Afghanistan as partially corrected that mistake. I

raq? No, not particularly safer, not from terrorists anyway. Saddam was never a direct threat to the US, but he was a serious threat to other countries in a strategic region of the world and an indirect threat.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 04:06 PM

I'd endorse part of that, Carol, but not all of it. I don't think you know what you're asking in those changes to the UN, but it's not going to happen. None of the permanent members of the Security Council would let it happen; they all have too much at stake.

That's the fly in the ointment... at least for the time being. But terrorism will never go away until they do. Some day they will realize this, if everyone on earth doesn't get killed first.

Interedsting question: what percentage of your standard of living are you willing to give up to achieve this?

Interesting question indeed. What do you know about my standard of living, and on what basis do you assume I would have to give up any of it in order to achieve what I suggested?

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 04:18 PM

I know next to nothing of your standard of living, Carol. Well enough to make some guesses, but that's beside the point. I didn't mean to make the question of personal. I think the changes you suggest and their consequence would help reduce the standard of living the US substantially. How much would you or anyone else be willing to give up?

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 04:30 PM

You need to know something about my standard of living in order to understand any sort of answer I might give you. We're living in a small travel trailer in a mobile home court in rural Alabama. It costs us $100 per month to park our trailer here. Right now, I'm doing my internetting in a little metal shed that we've set up next to our trailer. We have one vehicle, which we don't use more than once or twice a week on average. All of the jobs that Rob is qualified to do seem to be bleeding over to India, and Rob is in the process of figuring out what he wants to do for a living now.

I'm working on some projects of my own, but they're not generating any income yet, so we're living on savings. There's no telling when we will have an income again. The projects I'm working on, if they do eventually generate an income, won't necessarily be dependent on the economic situation in the US. So I don't think I would agree with the idea that the changes I've suggested will necessarily have any significant impact on my standard of living.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 04:34 PM

Sorry, Carol, wasn't trying to go there.

I'm worried that a good percentage of the US population would join your life style if the changes you suggest were implemented. Many of them would not like it.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 04:38 PM

It's not all that bad, actually. We're sort of enjoying the simplicity of it. I think it would not necessarily be a bad thing for other people to adopt a simpler lifestyle. In fact, I think it woud probably be a very good thing. And just think how liberating it would be for us not to have to maintain our high standard of living using blood money as the basis for it.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 04:47 PM

Sure, and maybe people will give up their SUVs, too. But it's a nice thought and I respect it.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 04:54 PM

The SUV problem is already being addressed. There are hybrid SUVs that will be available on the market very soon. That's a very good start, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 07:38 PM

So, let me get this straight.

Clinton did recognize that Al Quaeda was a new type of, and significant, threat.

His response, as characterized by Rummie, and parroted by the Right, was to "lob a few cruise missles at them".

This only pissed-off Al Quaeda, he (Clinton) should have done more.

Now, please give me a reference to one (uno, ein, un, 1, I, e^-i*pi) Right winger who, at the time, said "that's good start, but we need to attack some more."

I'll give you a thousand references to those people screaming "wag the dog".

Oh Please, if Clinton had done what people are now saying he should have done, the outcry would have been even more shrill.

Don't assume I'm a Clinton fan. I just can't take the hypocrisy.

Interesting how the attack on Iraq has driven Enron, etc. off the front page. No one is screaming wag the dog about that are they?

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 08:01 PM

"Clinton did recognize that Al Quaeda was a new type of, and significant, threat."

Track down what Bob Kerrey said about that in the hearings today. It's fair to say Kerrey doesn't think the US understood what kind of threat Al Qaeda was during the Clinton administration.

At last count, 28 of the key players at Enron have indicted. Jeff Skilling, the lastest to be indicted, was in the news the other day when the police picked him up for acting erratically. Ken Lay's the only officer I know of that hasn't been touched yet, but it's only a matter of time. It is hard for something that happened in 2001 to remain a headline this many years later. Most of the actual crimes were committed in the late 90s after all.

Actually the other half dozen or so corporate scandals similar to Enron are more interesting than this case. Global Crossing, Worldcom, Rite Aid, Computer Associates, Dynergy, Healthsouth, Imclone, someone was asleep at the wheel when those guys were fixing their books from about 1996 on.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 08:29 PM

I'm not aware of any evidence that the Afghan war has had any adverse effect on the ability of the Al Qaida network to recruit and train recruits, and carry out attacks. And there is very strong reason to believe that it may have had the opposite effect.

The crucial weapon involved is not technological, it is human - once you have human beings who are willing to die in the course of carrying out the instructions, the rest is just detail. Pocket knives, fertiliser, backpacks - nothing high tech needed, no complicated training.

That is why the essential thing is to avoid providing that essential key weapon, the person who is motivated to give his or her life. Everything that has been done so far could have been designed to make it easier to recruit such people, by motivating increased numbers to feel that way.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 08:51 PM

An excerpt from
Inside Al Qaeda's Training Camps
What they're ready for.

By Bryan Preston

...But what kind of training are these potential killers receiving? According to a U.S. Army assessment of its training videos, al Qaeda operatives get high quality, professional preparation to carry out a number of combat operations.

According to the Army's assessment, which I have reviewed, al Qaeda troops are well trained and can pose a serious tactical threat to American and allied forces engaging them. In fact, their training in matters ranging from weapons handling to multi-layered force structure suggests a level of professionalism that is likely the result of contact with a state military structure. When they initiate an attack, they don't go in as cowboys. Carrying their handguns in the high ready position, or their assault rifles in a disciplined, military bearing, they never handle or fire their weapons in a haphazard manner. Their strike forces divide into teams, coordinated along lines of responsibility such as assault, security and support elements. These sub-elements maintain synchronicity via handheld radios.

Most chilling of all, the tactics seen on the al Qaeda training tape match nothing seen on the battlefields of Afghanistan. It's therefore reasonable to conclude that the videotaped tactics are for some future attack. The entire tape points to such a conclusion. The ambush scenario featured six-lane highways with cloverleaf exit and entry patterns similar to those in the United States and Europe. Some of the hostage scenarios featured raids of buildings with large numbers of occupants, suggesting schools or businesses. The golf-course scenario certainly doesn't look like anything likely to be pulled off in most Middle Eastern countries.

Al Qaeda troops train via a set of combat scenes that vary in scale and intent. Scenarios seen on the tape include those described above, as well as several others that involve hostages. All hostage scenarios began with extreme violence — anyone offering resistance was shot and killed on the spot. During the siege, the terrorists play-acted dictating commands to the hostages in English, and the play-acting hostages responded in English. For these scenarios, the terrorists are trained to determine whether any law enforcement, military, security, or even armed citizens, are among the hostages. If they find such people among the prisoners, the terrorists will segregate them from the others, and will control them by threatening to harm the unarmed hostages. The end fate for such prisoners is ritual execution in front of TV cameras. In fact, all of these scenarios ended with the terrorists murdering all hostages and preparing to die in place. None of the hostage scenarios deviated from this pattern...

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 09:27 PM

In fact, their training in matters ranging from weapons handling to multi-layered force structure suggests a level of professionalism that is likely the result of contact with a state military structure.

Hahahahaha... !!!!!!!!

No shit! That state structure would be the CIA (and whatever covert military stuff they used to train people like the Mujahideen).

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 02:59 AM

Strick - Re your reply to Carol C: "I'm worried that a good percentage of the US population would join your life style if the changes you suggest were implemented. Many of them would not like it."

Thats the point, Strick - Many will have to make those changes so that others won't have to die just to satisfy their lifestyles or their perceived needs. Most people in this world are just trying to live (clean air, water and an adequate diet) Never mind the SUV. Whats fair is fair.

I think the U.S. is outnumbered and the world is calling for change.

Nader is the only one who seems to know this. Kerry and Bush will only maintain the status quo.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: GUEST,Jim McCallan
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 11:02 AM

Strick..., I don't know if you do this deliberately or not, but let's go through it once again, shall we?

""Clinton did recognize that Al Quaeda was a new type of, and significant, threat."
Track down what Bob Kerrey said about that in the hearings today. It's fair to say Kerrey doesn't think the US understood what kind of threat Al Qaeda was during the Clinton administration."

What Bob Kerrey thought the US understood, has nothing whatsoever got to do with what Clinton recognised.
Clinton couldn't fart sideways without someone accusing him of 'dog wagging'

9/11 could have been prevented, Strick.
Does that not piss you off wholesale?

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 11:07 AM

dianavan, I understand. As a WAG, I'd say we might expect to give up one third of our current level of goods and services, and that we won't get to decide which third. It will probably include some things we really want or even need. More importantly, I have no doubt that the people hurt most by this will be the ones who can afford it least. Imagine we don't like that, but I'm also sure it's obvious.

To top it off, the cynic in me would think that any resulting "progress" in the world wouldn't go to the peoples who need it, it would go to the next two or three most agressive national powers. Ever feed ducks stale bread in at a pond? If the largest male stops eating, it isn't the smallest, weakest ducks that get the next pieces of the bread.

If you think getting the US to agree to this would be difficult, imagine what it'll be like getting everyone else on board.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 11:36 AM

"9/11 could have been prevented, Strick.
Does that not piss you off wholesale?"

I was refering to what Bob Kerrey said Bob Kerrey should have done, not what the US understood. Turns out Kerrey was involved in part of Clinton's policy efforts on this. He said that we never realized that Al Qaeda was an army and should be attacked like an army, not a criminal group. If he had it to do over again, he would treat them completely differently. If he had it to do over again...

You know, Jim, it doesn't piss me off, because I understand the dynamic. Did you know that the Union could have ended the Civil War in 6-8 months? All they had to do was promote Grant instead of McClelland to lead the Army of the Potomac and buy 200-500 Gatlin guns after the Union tested them in 1862. It's perfectly true, honest. We'd have saved what, 300,000-400,000 lives? Shouldn't I be pissed off given that would have prevented the total destruction of the South (their army would have been defeated in the field not by burning their homeland) and Lincoln would have lead the instead of Reconstruction instead of Congress? Then again, do you have any idea what it would have taken for someone with sufficient authority to recognize that and overcome all the obstacles to keep these two things from happening?

The question is not whether 9/11 could have been prevented. Hell, I could have described senarios that would have prevented it without one word from this Commission. The question is whether the senarios are realistic given the obstacles that existed in the real world, not the healthy imagination of the people looking back on the situtation.

By and large the world doesn't work the way it's supposed to. That mutiple, somewhat competing organizations siloed information and didn't connect the dots the way they should have shouldn't be a surprise. That they couldn't respond effectively to something they had never encountered before shouldn't be a surprise. It's the real world, after all.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 11:47 AM

I think you're wrong about that, Strick. It's really only a very small percentage of people who are benefitting from a petroleum dependent economy. An economy that is based on sustainable and ethically responsible energy, goods, and services would benefit far more people. It's the people in the bottom 90 percent (the ones currently with the lowest standard of living) who will benefit. You're forgetting that these are the people who are paying all of the hidden costs of the petroleum based economy. Including the hidden cost of their sons and daughters getting killed in places like Iraq.

You're a Christian, right? Do you think you'll go to heaven if you make decisions that result in other people losing their lives just so you can have a higher standard of living? What was it somebody said about a camel passing through the eye of a needle?

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: GUEST,Jim McCallan
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 11:51 AM

Yes, but apparently a lot of other actions against the US were prevented during this time, presumably using the same intelligence gathering/sharing systems.

The question then is: Who took their eye off the ball?
Which of course, would then beg the question: Why?

I think in this eon of dot joining, we should be able to join those ones.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 11:51 AM

"An economy that is based on sustainable and ethically responsible energy, goods, and services would benefit far more people."

The oil based economy's not the reason that isn't happening right, now, Carol. I just don't think the underlying reasons are going to change just because we reduce our standard of living while shifting to different energy sources.

"You're a Christian, right? Do you think you'll go to heaven if you make decisions that result in other people losing their lives just so you can have a higher standard of living? What was it somebody said about a camel passing through the eye of a needle?"

Don't worry about me. It doesn't work like that.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 11:56 AM

The oil based economy's not the reason that isn't happening right, now, Carol. I just don't think the underlying reasons are going to change just because we reduce our standard of living while shifting to different energy sources.

Isn't the reason what isn't happening right now? The end of terrorism? I think it's a very big part of the reason. The biggest part of it. But you're right. Our predatory capitalism isn't confined only to the petroleum part ot the economy. I would suggest that predatory capitalism, in whatever form it comes, does not help the bottom 90 percent of people. Only the top 10 percent of people benefit from this practice. The rest pay the hidden costs, and do the most suffering because of the repercussions of this way of doing things.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 12:01 PM

"Yes, but apparently a lot of other actions against the US were prevented during this time, presumably using the same intelligence gathering/sharing systems."

Oh, agreed. They stopped lots of stuff they knew to look for, mostly things that didn't require as much cooperation or imagination. For instance, in the case of the Millenium bomb plot it only took one attentive border guard. No special intelligence work was required, just one low level civil servant being curious enough to search the guy's car. That guy deserves a promotion, a raise and a reward (though knowing my luck, the guy who replaces him at the check point won't be as curious).

Don't take this wrong, but if Ben Laden were more like "Pretty Boy" Floyd, the FBI would have caught him long ago. Ben Laden's a new thing and, regretably, large, complex institutions change slowly.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 12:11 PM

Al Qaeda was an army and should be attacked like an army, not a criminal group.

What does that actually mean? Whether you call it an army or a criminal group it operates in small groups, acting it would appear with a great deal of independence. If "arrmy" mesans something you can hoe to meet and defeat in battle, that is not the tight word to use for Al Qaeda.

It relies on the timeworn guerrilla principle of taking advantage of natural cover - more especially natural human cover, of not being readily distinguishable from the rest of the population. It also depends on having potentially some degreee of support from people who are open, in some degree, to being sympathetic to its aims.

A major factor in developing and holding on to that kind of sympathy, and translating it, where necessary, into active support, is the impact of overkill by its opponents on the population in which the potential sympathisers live.

I imagine that the operatives in organisations like the CIA know this kind of stuff. However, if so, they don't seem to have had much success in getting the message across to the people in charge.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 12:15 PM

"Al Qaeda was an army and should be attacked like an army, not a criminal group.

What does that actually mean?"

I'm not sure I know. I caught a few minutes of the Commission investigation on TV yesterday and apparently Kerrey was in a reflective mood because he was saying this instead of asking questions of the FBI guy before the Commission. Maybe he'll explain what he means in the report.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 01:15 PM

I said this in another thread and Ill repeat it here,
you can spread the blame for not preventing 9/11, but the IRaq
venture is Bushs own idea, and plan from the start.

and yet every step of the way the Bush admin. has been wrong,
there were no wmds, they werent greeted as liberators,
remember Wolfowitz saying that SHinsekis troop estimates for holding Iraq were WILDLY inaccurate.. right.

(not enough to prevent the widespread looting and destruction following the collapse)
if they have enough troops why are they asking other countries to send in more? what does it matter what passport they have?
(in fact yesterday they announced they will be sending more)

the plan is to hand over power June 30th, and when Paul Bremer was asked the other day to whom they will hand it over? he said "Thats a good question". (bad answer as far as Im concerned)

why is it June 30th? the only reason is timing for the next US election.
and they will stay as long as necessary? it will have to be years.
its time to fire the idiot chicken hawks like Rumsfeld and WOlfowitz,
the top brass in the pentagon is hated by the uniforms anyway.
they havent a clue what to do next. ANd the problem with BUsh is that whenever theres any opposition he just digs in his heels.

after 9/11 the much of the world sided with the US, all of that goodwill has been squandered by BUSH,

the Bush administration believes the US has the power to do it alone,
yet at the same time they ask the UN and other nations to participate in reconstruction but are not willing to hand over any power.

with incredibly stupid timing they send Powell around trying to get the Europeans to forgive Iraqi debts, at the same time announcing reconstruction contracts will only go to US and (coalition of 'willing')

whoever inherits the mess in November knows the US will have to stay for a long time, and it will need to do it with the help of other nations and the UN to have any real legitimacy.

its time to build a real coalition but no one in the white House except Powell is any good at that.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 01:29 PM

"They stopped lots of stuff they knew to look for, mostly things that didn't require as much cooperation or imagination"

I don't think you can make such a generalised sweeping statement like that, Strick.
They stopped all that lot of other stuff by joining dots as well, I would imagine.

I don't doubt for one minute that Bush is doing more to get his house in order these days, than what was the case pre 9/11, but has anything really changed as far as the perceived threat is concerned? If the imagination was already there to envisage all sorts of other kinds of threats, short of getting attacked by aliens, I mean how much imagination does it take, and how much of it do we allow our leaders and their advisors to be lacking in, before we start calling them total buffoons?

'The Buck Stops Here' That's what Truman had the guts to accept as being one of the perks of his job. Encapsulated in those four words is an ready admission of the frailties of being in Government; the acknowledgement as it were, that to err is human. But whose responsibility is it ultimately?
9/11 happened on George W. Bush's watch, Strick. His subsequent crusade, so aptly called 'The War On Terror' was as naive as it's catchy title is... 'catchy', I suppose. It might be difficult for you to imagine how utterly pretentious and arrogant that kind of a declaration sounds to people who really know the futility of making such statements, but believe me, when I first heard those words uttered, I shook my head in disbelief.

Bush's crowd didn't join up the dots in the 200 odd days leading up to September 11, that much we know.
If they had a 'painting by numbers' book, would they have done any better, I wonder?

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 02:06 PM

Jim McCallan - 14 Apr 04 - 01:29 PM

<<"They stopped lots of stuff they knew to look for, mostly things that didn't require as much cooperation or imagination"

I don't think you can make such a generalised sweeping statement like that, Strick.
They stopped all that lot of other stuff by joining dots as well, I would imagine.>>

Hi Jim,

Do you remember the Iraqi "Super Gun" affair? Do you remeber who spotted it? And how it was spotted?

If not I'll refresh your memory.

The "Super Gun" saga was a little scheme of Saddam's to obtain a low cost way of lobbing fairly large lumps of artillery from a site in western Iraq into Israel. He hired a Canadian Gerald Bull to design and construct it. The barrel for this gun came in sections and had to be made of quite an exotic steel machined to amazingly tight tolerances. The Iraqi oil ministry ordered it as being required for oil field/oil refinery use. Churchill's the steel makers were contracted to manufacture and machine these pipes. All considered to be above board everthing appeared to be in order, nobody suspected a thing.

Being made in Sheffield the port these "pipe sections" were sent to was Immingham on the Humber. One of HM's Customs and Excise Officers at Immingham had a look at these "pipe sections" then had a good look at the accompanying paper work and blew the whistle. Pity for Saddam and his boys, if they'd sent those pipes damn near anywhere else they, more like-as-not, would have got away with it. The Custom's Officer was familiar with supplies and pipe work destined for refinery and offshore use, as around that time quite a bit of it was passing through Immingham. Purely by happen-chance, he took one look at the Iraqi consignment and recognised that whatever purpose these pipe sections were going to be used for, the oil and gas industry was not it. No alerts, no major threat warnings, no special briefings - just a guy doing his job.

That story somewhat similar to that of the US border Guard?

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 02:16 PM

Here we go again...

"I was refering to what Bob Kerrey said Bob Kerrey should have done, not what the US understood"

No Strick, you definately said "It's fair to say Kerrey doesn't think the US understood what kind of threat Al Qaeda was during the Clinton administration."

By reflecting on your writings in these threads, I can see why quite a lot of the verbal bumf that is coming out of the White House these days finds good homes in some peoples' consciousness.
I'm sorry to have to remark this, Strick, but between the gaps in what you are saying, you could fly a couple of aeroplanes.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 02:21 PM

I remember the incident well, Teribus. He joined a few dots, fair play to him.

Would that his (and the border guard's) bosses were as job orientated.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 03:05 PM

Frankly, 9/11 is over, and no one can say definitely whether or not it could have been prevented. There seem to be equally good arguments for and against the case for prevention.

There do seem to have been some odd moves, however, and further information is always good. Tomorrow night (04/15) on an American in-depth news analysis show called "Frontline," they are presenting a program about an FBI agent named O'Neill, who was the leading expert on al Qaeda, and who was let go by the FBI apparently in the summer of 2001. It's being presented by PBS, and I am definitely going to watch it. There is a vaguely rotten smell that continues to hover around 9/11, and perhaps this programme will provide some answers.

More Details

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 04:13 PM

""I was refering to what Bob Kerrey said Bob Kerrey should have done, not what the US understood"

My bad. Bob Kerrey was speaking about what he himself in his role as a policy maker on intelligence during the Clinton administration thought was wrong. He did seem to imply that he thought it was a flaw in the entire Adminstration's view of the issue.

In the time between our posts I forgot how I phrased my first point and took your post to imply what was "understood" by the US which might have included almost anything whether it was universally understood or understood by one field agent but never brought to anyone else's attention. That doesn't change what I meant, but I can see how my confusion made it hard to follow.

As I said, I'm sure they stopped a lot of plots that they could recognized because they dealt with them before. I'm equally sure they would have been surprised by something new, as history has shown happens over and over. They didn't even remotely stop the Cole attack, for instance.

Just heard the present director of the FBI giving his testimony and it illustrates my point in a different way. He said that prior to 9/11 he had been thinking of all of this in a legal sense, the way he did when he was a prosecutor. Get enough evidence against the terrorists, get an indictment and bring them to trial. After 9/11 he thinks in terms of bringing the information to the attention of policy makers so that steps can be taken. I assumed he meant increasing the security alert for one thing, but I also assumed he meant assasinating the terrorist(s) involved if appropriate. (At least the assasination of Ben Laden's been explored by the Commission ad nauseum, so I assume that's in.) That change in attitude, the diffence in thinking before and after a major event, is what I've been talking about.

While I understand the change in attitude, I'm not sure I like it, particularly that assasination part. Who's to say who is or isn't a terrorist? Can you assasinate them even if they're in the US?

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 04:33 PM

Actually I'd have thought that, if the American government is going to start killing people it thinks might be hostile, it should start with its own - there's a better case to be argued arguing that it has some over-riding right of life and death over its own citizens, as against the rest of us.

Any suggestion that it should for some reason be less problematic killing citizens of other countries with whom the USA is not at war should be strenuously resisted.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 04:38 PM

"Any suggestion that it should for some reason be less problematic killing citizens of other countries with whom the USA is not at war should be strenuously resisted."

I haven't listened to everything that's been said by the Commission, but that's the kind of thing I believe they think should have been done to prevent 9/11, kill Ben Laden and as many Al Qaeda as possible.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Peace
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 04:50 PM

When you sleep with the Devil, you shouldn't be surprised to have the Devil's children.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 05:03 PM

"Actually I'd have thought that, if the American government is going to start killing people it thinks might be hostile, it should start with its own - there's a better case to be argued arguing that it has some over-riding right of life and death over its own citizens, as against the rest of us."

On reflection, maybe it's a case of no representation with out taxation?

Actually, I hope I'm wrong. It's just the way all the talk of covert actions and overt attacks (cruise missles) strikes me. Part of it is as Tenet described it earlier today where the FBI is constrained by the Constitution in domestic affairs, the CIA isn't in international affairs. Not too surprising since the same is said of MI6.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 09:00 PM

Petr - What makes you think Powell is so good at building coalition? Powell has a long history of abusing his power.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 09:02 PM

actually hes the only guy I could think of in this administration
with any sense.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 09:29 PM

He's sensible enough to want a whole lot of power. He's been setting himself up as a hero for a very long time. We haven't seen the last of him, either. He's just waiting for the opportunity.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 09:36 PM

It's hard to say, dianavan. He certainly won't be running for national office anytime soon. I've heard that his wife really isn't into politics and she' have to be for him to be successful.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Amos
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 09:44 PM

An interesting essay on Unanswered Questions about 9-11.

Regards,

A

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 09:53 PM

An even more interesting article in Newsweek.

What the PDB Didn't Say

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 09:53 PM

No wonder, Strick! He's probably still trying to explain Anita (was that her name?)

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 12:23 PM

Powell is the one who convinced George Bush to try to build a UN coalition rather than going it alone on Iraq last year.

by the way.. by this time in their terms Both Clinton and George H. Bush each had 72 live press conferences. George W had 11. (according to CNN)

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Kim C
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 12:32 PM

If Bush had said on August 11, we're going to go capture Osama bin Laden because we have evidence he's planning an imminent terrorist attack here in a month, there would have been a huge outcry against such a preemptive strike. People would have resisted it. They would have said he was out of his mind, and just doing it for political gain - just like with the Iraq war.

Maybe in theory, 9/11 could have been prevented. Maybe Pearl Harbor could have been prevented. Maybe monkeys will fly out my butt.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Amos
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 12:39 PM

Kim:

I dunno much about monkeys (or your butt, which I am sure is very nice) but I don't think they fly.

On the other hand, both 9-11 and Pearl were catastrophes that could have been derailed before they occurred with just a few changes in the unfolding scenario -- for example, if the PResident pro tem had been staying up late in the Oval OFfice instead of vacationing in Crawford. Or if certain cables warning of Japanese intent had beens een and acted on in a timely fashion.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 01:04 PM

The crucial thing, that would have averted what happened on September 11th, would have been if passengers and crew had been aware that hijacking now meant something competletely different, and that the rules of how to deal with a mid-air crises were now stood on their head.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 01:52 PM

"Or if certain cables warning of Japanese intent had beens een and acted on in a timely fashion"

Seen what? Acted on how? I've read the decoded Japanese cables, the key intelligence passed between Washington and Pearl and the orders issued all around during the lead up to the attack. They don't say anything tangible. Everyone one knew something was up, but not what. The possibility of an attack on Pearl was considered briefly but dismissed locally. Washington actually advised brass at Pearl to expect a Japanese attack on bases further southeast and ordered them to put their few patrol planes, the only chance they had of detecting the attack in advance, patroling in that direction, not to the north where the attack actually came from.

I'll see if I relocate a website that posts facimiles of these documents so you can see for yourself. Pearl Harbor might have been prevented if FDR wasn't so intent on getting into WWII and had pursued a less aggressive policy towards both Japan and Germany, but it couldn't have been prevented militarily short of some major good luck for the US or bad luck for the Japanese.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 05:48 PM

there was an observation outpost that spotted the Japanese planes coming in, reported it and was told 'dont worry about it, theyre ours'
p
plus keeping most of the pacific fleet in port and thus vulnerable isnt necessarily the best planning either.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 06:06 PM

"there was an observation outpost that spotted the Japanese planes coming in, reported it and was told 'dont worry about it, theyre ours'
p
plus keeping most of the pacific fleet in port and thus vulnerable isnt necessarily the best planning either."

That observation post was on Hawaii itself its warning would have made about 35 minutes difference, not enough time to matter given how long it would have taken to scramble and adequate number of interceptors or get the fleet moving since Pearl was not on alert and not considered a target. They really were expecting a fleet of B-17s. The radar being used at the time was considered experimental and couldn't tell the difference between less than a couple of dozen bombers and roughly 350 Japanese attack planes.

According the source I have, fleets around the world are in port 80-90% of the time. They wear out when they're out of port too much and battleships in particular were too expensive to keep moving too often or too long. The dispatches I saw showed the Japanese had intelligence indicating the battleships were in port and that the carriers were out. I've visited Pearl like a lot of tourists. It's easy to pick out which ships are in port from a good distance from the base without being noticed.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 02:22 AM

Interesting articlefrom yesterday's Guardian

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: ard mhacha
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 12:43 PM

Nice one Jim,Do we laugh or do we cry, what a man.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 12:45 PM

Thanks for the interesting article, Jim. As Drucker says, some leaders are readers and some are listeners. For Drucker, either style can be effective, it's more a matter of understanding what your boss needs so you can present it to him in a way he can understand.

In my case, I'm a listener. That's funny given how much I read, but it's the truth. I've seen more people get into trouble reading reports than I can say. I prefer to look the briefer in the eye and see if he believes what he's saying, if there's anything left out of what's on paper. The thing I like about Clinton's style is that he asked questions. What I would like most to know about Bush's briefings, particularly the Aug 6th briefing, is what questions he asked. He should have probed the nature of the evidence for the assertions and the nature of the investigations that were supposed to be ongoing. He should have asked if any of the information suggested that something was going to happen soon. If the briefer couldn't say, what was being done to find out. If the briefer couldn't sya because he didn't have first hand knowledge, I'd insist he get back to me.

In the case of the Aug 6th briefing, even if I had completely trusted the briefer and what the people working for him were duing (at some level you have, they're the experts and you're not - if you can't you should replace the Director of the CIA), I would still have wanted to know if he thought the situtation was under control, what else could be or needed to be done, and what did he need me to do, provide more resources, knock down barriers, whatever. Unfortunately, we don't know what questions Bush asked, do we?

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 12:51 PM

according to cnn.
by this time in their terms of office both Clinton and George H Bush
had 72 press conferences, George W had 11

Im not surprised he doesnt read his pdbs but has them read to him.

whether 911 could have been prevented is past history and can be
blamed on a whole number of people and circumstances but the Iraq venture is George W.'s own project.

and how many things have they been wrong about, aside from the obvious twisted and exaggerated notion of imminent wmd threat, and encouraginag an unsubstantiated link to 911 in the publics mind.

(wolfowitz & rumsfelds own 'wildly' inaccurate troop requirement
to establish security in post invasion Iraq.

Cheneys and wolfowitz's 'wildly' incorrect assumption they would be greeted as liberators.

disbanding the Iraqi army - thus creating a cadre of idle, embittered and armed young men.

when Paul Bremer was asked the other day - who they will hand over power to on June 30th he said 'thats a good question' - bad answer.

-

Heres what Ret. Marine Gen. Zinni has to say
(the full article is here)
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20040416-9999-7m16zinni.html

Not even Zinni's resumé could shield him from the accusations that followed.

"I've been called a traitor and a turncoat for mentioning these things," said Zinni, 60. The problems in Iraq are being caused, he said, by poor planning and shortsightedness, such as disbanding the Iraqi army and being unable to provide security.

Zinni said the United States must now rely on the U.N. to pull its "chestnuts out of the fire in Iraq."

"We're betting on the U.N., who we blew off and ridiculed during the run-up to the war," Zinni said. "Now we're back with hat in hand. It would be funny if not for the lives lost."

Several things have to happen to get Iraq back on course, whether the U.N. decides to step in or not, Zinni said.

Improving security for American forces and the Iraqi people is at the top of the list followed closely by helping the working class with economic projects.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 02:44 PM

"whether 911 could have been prevented is past history"

And wouldn't they love it if we just put it behind us and moved on.
Sorry, not going to happen. I have said before that "the buck stops here" and that's what should be said. If he really believes that he and his staff had no inkling that 9/11 was in the works then he should have no problem saying exactly that. We're all human, even him, despite what some people think(LOL), and we all make mistakes.

He is running for re-election as a "War President" (his own words).
Since tht is his "claim to fame" and the reason to re-elect him then we, as good citizens of the USA involved in our democracy, need to examine how the war is going. It's good points, bad points, reasons for going, reasons for staying, etc.

He is running for re-election on the "strengths" that he has as compared to the strengths of his opponent on the issue of security. Once again it behooves us to examine the who, what, where, why and hows of the attack and the strategies employed afterward for combatting terrorism in this country.

True patriots and truly good military personnel do not just blindly follow orders and ignore what they are seeing around them or what they know to be true.

I stand by my assesment of the strategy to blame the previous administration. Wag the dog, wag the dog, wag the dog. That is all we heard from the loyal opposition. And with the intelligence that netted us 1 milk factory and a Chinese Embassy (as well as an empty terrorist camp), I don't think Clinton can be held responsible for not "Killing him when he had the chance".

Strick, I like to read the brief and hear the brief. I to like to look in the eyes of the person briefing me. Unfortunately when you have seen a prediliction in your boss not to want to hear views that oppose his (and Bush has fired quite a few that weren't wearing their prescribed rose colored glasses)and you like your job and need the money to pay for things, like the rest of us, you tell him what he wants to hear.

As far as the current administration paying strong attention to terrorism prior to 9/11, the Pres. made it perfectly clear that his priority was for the "Star Wars" missile defense system. Something that had lain rather dormant after the fall of the Soviet Union. Last time I checked no terrorist organization has ever used a missile (of the type that this system would detect and defend against) in any terrorist attacks.

I myself, upon hearing that Al Quiada was looking to hit a target in NY City and/or Washington would have imediately thought of the World Trade Center that an attempt had already been made on.

Again, there is enough blame to go round, but it happened on HIS watch, and up until that time and since, this administration has been more secretive than any I have previously experienced. Is it any wonder why the FBI/CIA/ etc. would play it the same way and not talk to each other?

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 04:03 PM

Interesting Frontline last night.

I remember reading THIS article while waiting in my dentist's office a couple years ago.

Looks like an interesting line-up on NOW, with Bill Moyers this evening. Check your local listings.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 04:05 PM

whether 911 could have been prevented is past history

And those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. That's why history is an important academic subject, and why we keep historical records.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 04:17 PM

...of course, a lot of what is taught as "history" is really propaganda, but I'd say that's one of the reasons we're so deeply up to our nostrils in ca-ca right now, and getting deeper all the time...

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 04:48 PM

Don:

We saw "Frontline last night, too. The page you linked to does not make an important point obvious.

John O'Neill of the FBI was apparantly the most informed person (not counting Bin Laden) about the impending attack by Al Qaeda and was very frustrated by the fact that his superiors wouldn't listen to him. He was so frustrated that he left the FBI and took a new job as head of security for the trade towers.

In spite of all of his knowledge, he died in the attack. If the most informed person in the U.S. couldn't prevent his own death, how could we expect anyone in the government to have prevented the attack?

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 06:10 PM

Bev and Jerry, I thought that was made clear in the New Yorker article I linked to. Also, there are links on the Frontline page that you can click on.

O'Neill ran smack into a bureaucracy composed of self-serving sycophants who just wanted to put in their time and draw their retirement without making waves, and here was O'Neill, yelling "Look out!" and rocking the boat. He was doing the job the taxpayers were paying him to do while the rest of them were busy trying to protect their pensions.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 06:53 PM

"Is it any wonder why the FBI/CIA/ etc. would play it the same way and not talk to each other?"

Chief, if it were for the ample evidence that these organizations did not suddenly stop talking to each other and have been like that for years, I might agree. In reality, it's a continum that changed gradually, sometime for the better, sometimes for worse, over many, many years.

"I myself, upon hearing that Al Quiada was looking to hit a target in NY City and/or Washington would have imediately thought of the World Trade Center that an attempt had already been made on."

Odd, when I hear someone's scoping out federal buildings as the PDB described, I think of Oklahoma City. Nothing in it would have put me in mind of using airplanes as missles. Truck bombs, which didn't work against the WTC the first time, but not airplanes. I understand a few people thought of that, but even the ones who did never described how they would defend a whole city like New York, espeically not over extended periods of time.

"Strick, I like to read the brief and hear the brief. I to like to look in the eyes of the person briefing me. Unfortunately when you have seen a prediliction in your boss not to want to hear views that oppose his (and Bush has fired quite a few that weren't wearing their prescribed rose colored glasses)and you like your job and need the money to pay for things, like the rest of us, you tell him what he wants to hear."

Neither of us have any information on how that briefing took place or why so much information was left out of the PDB, do we?

"And with the intelligence that netted us 1 milk factory and a Chinese Embassy (as well as an empty terrorist camp), I don't think Clinton can be held responsible for not 'Killing him when he had the chance'."

You forgot the aspirin factory. I'm not willing to blame the Clinton administration, either. I just don't see how not making radical improvements in policy and intelligence gathering and analysis immediately after coming to power warrants blame, either. On Bush's watch, yes, blame? Look to Ben Laden.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 07:00 PM

I don't think anyone, including the terrorists, could have imagined that those big skyscrapers would collapse just like that.

Even leaving terrorists out of it, there is always the possibility of a civil airline crashing into a building, and the public had always been told that buildings like that were so tough they could withstand anything like that.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 07:25 PM

"Even leaving terrorists out of it, there is always the possibility of a civil airline crashing into a building, and the public had always been told that buildings like that were so tough they could withstand anything like that."

Sure. Have you seen the photos of the B-25 bomber that crashed into the Empire State building?

Empire State Building Crash

Architects thought they had actually improved building design to survive larger planes. They just didn't anticipate all that fuel burning and melting a handfull of beams necessary to keeping the builds up.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 07:53 PM

Those are the kinds of "improvements" that ensure that, when it comes to technology, I'm extremely conservative. I don't trust change, and I don't trust "experts".

Quite how anyone could imagine a huge aeroplane crashing into a building, and discount the possibility of it having a load of fuel to burn up, is a bit hard to understand. And once you imagine that, you know that "a handful of beams" are not going to be sufficient.

There were reports that the extent of the damage completely astonished people in the terrorist network. They'd probably seen that photo from 1945.

I wonder how many other "improvements" like that are waiting to surprise us all?

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 08:05 PM

Not all surprises are bad. Back in 1970 a "super" F5 tornado 1 1/2 miles wide hit Lubbock, Texas. Wiped out lots of downtown, but one building survived despite being hit hard. They had to resink the elevator shafts because the building, while perfectly serviceable, was no longer square. Won awards for being tornado resistant, though no one thought it was that special before then.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 08:07 PM

actually they did design for aircrashes into buildings, except the planes got a lot bigger since the wtc was designed.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 08:50 PM

Now a rational society would tie those kind of things together.

That would have been a good reason to refuse to allow the planes to get that big. And since buildings like that are built with a view to staying up for a long time, it's necessary to take into account future technology, such as bigger planes, when building them, and allowing them to be built.

In fact the Twin Towers design was finally approved in 1966, when construction started; the first Boeing 757 was ordered in 1978. That's not a long time in the life of a building - I am sure that any aeronautic expert in 1966 would have been able to predict that, within the lifetime of the Twin Towers, planes as big as that and bigger could be anticipated. That would imply that if a building like that was to be built, it would have to be able to withstand that kind of collision. (And I'm not suggesting that they would need to have been thinking in terms of terrorism, but rather of accidents, which do happen).

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 17 Apr 04 - 07:06 PM

"... Afghanistan? Yeah, I feel safer. Al Qaeda lost a major base of operations and isn't nearly as effective as it would have been if we hadn't gone in

They may have lost a major base of operations, Strick, but I would doubt that the citizens of Madrid would agree with you that they are anyhow less effective. It is nice that you feel safer though, but remember that there is a world outside your window, that is decidedly unsafer because of some of the policies of those various administrations you reckon I'm intent on blaming when their strategies don't work.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 12:09 AM

There is of course, another angle to all of this.

The much publicised PDB was entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US". Condi Rice has called this a 'historical document', although the title suggests it more to be prophetic one (unless you read 'Determined' as implying the past tense); one containing evidence from various sources, to support it being titled thus.
Considering that George W. may not have read this document at the time, and that the Bush administration's view (as testified to by Dr. Rice) was that they considered Bin Laden's determination to strike in the US, as 'old news' somehow, indicates to me at least, not so much a non-joining-of-dots excercise, as a disturbing oversight with regard to something as serious, and as fundamental as National Security.
To claim that nowhere was it mentioned that planes would be used as weapons and flown into buildings on September 11, is far from the point. To suggest that they would needed to have that kind of information in black and white is a preposterous assertion, and to offer it as some sort of an excuse, is not so much a reflection on the Intelligence services, as on the people who are charged with interpreting that intelligence.

Further up the thread a bit, Teribus reminded us of the diligence of a Customs official in uncovering the 'Super Gun' affair, and Strick told of the perceptive border guard who foiled the Millenium bomb plot.
Nobody had told those people what to expect when they clocked into work that day; they were just 'doing their job'. A job, incidentally, that would have been in extreme jeopardy were it to be suggested they had been inattentive in any way, if the items concerned had have evaded detection at that point. If your mind is on your job, you look for everything. If you are someone with appropriate authority, you tighten airport security, and employ a few more G men. And most of all, you keep on top of the situation. This is not what is known as 20/20 hindsight. It is common-sense. And if it hadn't been an ongoing policy of successive US administrations, well then, none of them had their eyes on the ball, and they all are truly to blame.

But the person in ultimate charge at the minute is George W. Bush. He was very much in charge on August 6th 2001, also. This man, however, delegates much of what he does, which presumably affords him the luxury of being able to conduct the little he does actually seem to assume responsiblity for, from a more relaxed location; the Ranch, being a place in point, and he comes across as being all brawn and little brain in his public utterances. A person like George W. Bush is used to getting his own way (a quality to be admired, perhaps, in a benevolent leader), but if you couple that with the almost megalomaniacal picture, previously entirely credible people have painted of him, one would be forgiven for expressing the old adage that there is no smoke without fire.

I was relieved to see, though, that he got John Negroponte's name right when he introduced him to the press as the new Ambassador to Iraq, recently. In a recent Q/A session, he called his present representative there, Jerry (Gerry?) Bremer. It is this lackadaisicalness as far as attention to detail is concerned that worries me, frankly. His Reaganesque-reminiscent short term memory faculty never ceases to depress me, and if his selective inarticulateness is anything to go by, his being lost for words at such important times gives one the impression of someone who is more making it up as he goes along, than of someone with a long-term plan in mind.
The contention that he is, and has been on top of things since the beginning of his Presidency, doesn't hold much water, in my opinion. Too many

'revelations' have been made, for my liking, which point to gross incompetancy with respect to his leadership skills, and there are, at present, too many evaded questions still hanging in mid-air. Too much beating around the bush.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 03:47 AM

"Further up the thread a bit, Teribus reminded us of the diligence of a Customs official in uncovering the 'Super Gun' affair, and Strick told of the perceptive border guard who foiled the Millenium bomb plot.
Nobody had told those people what to expect when they clocked into work that day; they were just 'doing their job'. A job, incidentally, that would have been in extreme jeopardy were it to be suggested they had been inattentive in any way, if the items concerned had have evaded detection at that point. If your mind is on your job, you look for everything. If you are someone with appropriate authority, you tighten airport security, and employ a few more G men. And most of all, you keep on top of the situation. This is not what is known as 20/20 hindsight. It is common-sense. And if it hadn't been an ongoing policy of successive US administrations, well then, none of them had their eyes on the ball, and they all are truly to blame."

I have quoted the above passage from Jim McCallan's posting. A rather interesting point was made regarding airport security procedures in the US was reported in an article in a UK newspaper yesterday. It has to do with a long standing directive aimed not at combating terror, or increasing airport/aircraft security, but to avoid possible accusations of "racial profiling". Apparently, as reported if there are say 200 people waiting to go through security checks prior to boarding an aircraft, security staff are only allowed to question, in what is described as second stage security checks, two people of "arabic" appearance. Which means that with this rule in place, the attacks would still have succeeded (five hijackers for each aircraft). That rule, as reported, is still in place to this day. Possibly because to rescind it would be viewed as too great an attack on one's civil liberties, one's human rights. That to me is strange, taking into account the threat warnings - I'd have questioned them all, still would question them all today.

As to prevention. One measure that could be put in place to ensure that no such attack as 9/11 could ever be repeated is to actually programme civilian aircraft as cruise missiles in the following manner. The flight programme of every aircraft is modified so that in the event of an attempted hijack situation the pilot/co-pilot activates a control on the aircraft's automatic pilot which cannot be over-ridden, alternatively this could be activated from the ground. The aircraft is then programmed to fly a course clear of all air-lanes and centres of population to a military air-field for a fully automatic "hands-off" landing. As aircraft proceed on their journeys the programme is updated to alter which air base the aircraft will be diverted to. The technology exists to do this, has done for years (BEA conducted it's first fully automatic take-off and landing flights back in the 1960's).

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 09:44 AM

"They may have lost a major base of operations, Strick, but I would doubt that the citizens of Madrid would agree with you that they are anyhow less effective."

Jim, before those bases were destroyed, al Qaeda was turning out more trained recruits per year than the FBI and CIA combined. That's not happening anymore. Some of those trainees are dead or in prison, but most are out there some where. I don't think Afghanistan had anything to do with the Madrid attack or the attack the US can expect just prior to our election.

"The much publicised PDB was entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US". Condi Rice has called this a 'historical document', although the title suggests it more to be prophetic one (unless you read 'Determined' as implying the past tense)..."

Jim, reread the briefing and try to see it with pre-9/11 eyes. With the possible exception of the items which the briefing says were unconfirmed and what we now know was a misleading overstatement of the FBI investigations underway, there's nothing in that briefing that would have been news two or three years earlier. Ben Laden wants to attack the US (again) and is considering hijacking planes or using bombs. Period. Duh.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 04:06 PM

George Bush contradicted himself at the Press conference,
by saying no one could have predicted hijacked planes crashing into buildings, but in fact George had attended the Genoa G8 conference in July 2001 and was specifically warned about that very threat.
(I remember hearing on the news at the time that they were setting up antiaircraft defense systems)
can read it all at misleader.org

Bush Contradicts Self At His Own Press Conference


During last night's prime time press conference, President Bush once again claimed that "there was nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government that could envision flying airplanes into buildings"1. But just minutes later at the same press conference the president proved he was not telling the truth.

Specifically, Bush said the reason he supposedly requested intelligence briefings before 9/11 "had to do with the Genoa G-8 conference I was going to attend" in 2001. Bush was referring to the fact that, prior to that conference, he was warned that "Islamic terrorists might attempt to kill him and other leaders by crashing an airliner into the summit" meetings2.

His statement that "the prior government" had not taken precautions against terrorists using planes as weapons is also contradicted by the facts. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that under President Clinton, "the federal government had on several earlier occasions taken elaborate, secret measures to protect special events from just such an attack"3 after receiving intelligence warnings4.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 04:31 PM

Clarke says the US set up point defenses against air attack for 5-6 events starting with the Atlanta Olympics. These involved things like a guy or two with a Stinger missle on a tall building near the specific site being protected and an increased level of air defense alert. It was expensive (notice they quit flying jets over NY after a few weeks?) and hardly fool proof and was never carried out too long or to protect more than a few buildings within a city. Clarke had suggested setting up protection for the White House and Congress. He admits that wouldn't have helped the Twin Towers or the Pentagon. Too many buildings in the US for that kind of point defense to protect everything.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: el ted
Date: 22 Apr 04 - 10:32 AM

Boring.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Apr 04 - 07:03 PM

Well don't fucking read it then

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 01:22 AM

"For instance, in the case of the Millenium bomb plot it only took one attentive border guard. No special intelligence work was required, just one low level civil servant being curious enough to search the guy's car. That guy deserves a promotion, a raise and a reward (though knowing my luck, the guy who replaces him at the check point won't be as curious)."

Foiling millennium attack was mostly luck

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 01:32 AM

... and 9/11 was just 'bad luck'?

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 09:25 AM

Good heavens, no, but you couldn't count too heavily on good luck to prevent it either. What isn't true is that any of the Clinton administration "actions" lead directly to preventing the Millennium attack. Clarke likes to portray what happened is that the administration was in Washington "shaking the trees" to get vital intel and the attack was prevented. What seems clear is that the administration was busy shaking trees and not finding anything while this lady was out doing her job and saving their bacon.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 10:37 AM

Of course 9/11 could have been prevented.
Pearl Harbor could also have been prevented
Hitler could also have been prevented

Hindsight is 20/20.    The question is how to prevent further terrorism.

One thing I have learned in life is that it can always get worse.   After the World Trade Center attack in 1993 we said that was the worst.   Than we had Oklahoma city.   That was the worst.   Than we had 9/11.   Will we look back one day after a terrorist sets off a dirty bomb and kills millions and say that 9/11 wasn't the worst?

To say that we are not effective in fighting terrorism is not correct.    Here are the facts from the US State Department.

2001    346 terrorists attacks world wide
2002    198 terrorists attacks world wide
2003    190 terrorists attacks world wide
This is the fewist terrorist attacks in 20 years.

To go to the UN is a joke.   With the oil for food scandals we now know why France, Russia and the UN were supporting Sadaam.   Read the Dick Morris column this week.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 02:10 PM

Strick, I would have thought WTC in New York because it was tried before and the terrorists are out to cause as much death and destruction as well as hitting our "monuments" to ourselves and a center of agreat deal of world wide monitary action.

Because they tried using a truck bomb before I would have thought that they would most likely try something else (while also making sure the precautions in place to prevent that from happening again were still functioning.

Would I have thought they'd crash a jet liner into the building?
The G-8 conference and the eiffel tower plot both pointed in that direction and it had been envisioned by Tom Clancy some years ago as well in one of his books. Standing on Bolling AFB across the Potomac River from the Ronald Reagan International Airport I remarked to my friend (some twenty years ago after the air florida disaster) that it could happen again and hit anything in DC and could be done intentionally without anybody being able to prevent it (of course I don't have anyone to verify that).

I think that if they had connected the dots that someone would have been bright enough to think "hey, they're gonna crash one into somethin'.

Actually on the morning of Sept. 11th when our watchstander told us about the incident my immediate thought was that it was a terorist attack because after the crash of the bomber into the Empire State Building, it has been illegal to fly planes over New York City.

Yeah, the FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA have all been playing their cards very close to their chests for quite along time. I didn't mean to say that they hadn't been, but rather that with the way that the administration seems to have slammed the door on the "public's right to know" that it didn't engender any reason to stop playing that way. Of course if they didn't protect their own turf someone might have further cut their budgets. After all why do we need so many intelligence agencies? The military is very much like this as well (with the Air Force leading the way).

No I don't know what went on that day at the morning brief, just applying my own experiences.

Not "blaming" Bush. Just applying an old military maxim that says if it happens on your watch, you're responsible. It also does seem that the incoming administration threw out anything from the old administration.

Bin Laden is to blame for 9/11 of course. But there is a long line of American involvement that presages 9/11. And like many of our other dealings with "revolutionaries" and questionable persons it came back to bite us hard.

Oh when will we ever learn?

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 02:25 PM

"Strick, I would have thought WTC in New York because it was tried before and the terrorists are out to cause as much death and destruction as well as hitting our "monuments" to ourselves and a center of agreat deal of world wide monitary action.

Because they tried using a truck bomb before I would have thought that they would most likely try something else (while also making sure the precautions in place to prevent that from happening again were still functioning."

Fair enough, Chief. After the August 6th PDB, I might have been thinking something completely different since it has people apparently scoping out the Federal buildings in Manhattan. I would have thought of OKC and wondered if they were looking for softer targets with tried and true methods.

Even if I decided they could use airplanes, I wouldn't have put all my eggs in one basket and focused all my attention on the Twin Towers. A likely target, yes, but so are thousands of others (we thought the building I was in on 9/11 was a natural target, too) including the Pentagon and the White House. Damned hard to protect all the possible targets for more than a week with the methods Dick Clarke proposed, much less the 6-7 weeks we had from the first alert to the actual even. In some other universe, they got it and protected the Twin Towers, only they gave up just be for the actual attack and lost them anyway.

No offense, but from my read of what little has come out of the Commission hearings so far, there wasn't much to throw out from the last administration.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: GUEST,Jim McCallan
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 02:54 PM

"To go to the UN is a joke"

You haven't been watching the news, recently, Larry K.

Bush can't go it alone..... like he promised he could
He needs help... like he said he didn't.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 03:01 PM

"I wouldn't have put all my eggs in one basket and focused all my attention on the Twin Towers"

I should hope not, Strick. The vast majority of attention-focusing would serve a much better purpose at the country's air and sea ports, border crossings, etc.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 03:13 PM

"The vast majority of attention-focusing would serve a much better purpose at the country's air and sea ports, border crossings, etc."

I agree, Jim, but those points are so far reaching and the variety of threats so great they defy the word "focus". We've been so successful with illegal immigration and drug smuggling through the years, after all.

Besides, whats to keep us safe from the garden variety domestic terrorist or a foreign one that's already here? Al Qaeda isn't producing well trained new ones, but who knows who might be living next to you.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: GUEST,Jim McCallan
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 03:28 PM

"I agree, Jim, but those points are so far reaching and the variety of threats so great they defy the word "focus". We've been so successful with illegal immigration and drug smuggling through the years, after all."

And 'focusing' attention on the Twin Towers (and every other tall building) would have been any easier?

It's the 'eggs in one basket' bit that's flawed, IMO. If we know how effective we are in drug smuggling, illegal immigration, and the like, we never needed a 9/11 to remind us that our security was lax.

Going into Iraq was like taking eggs from one badly in need of repair basket, and tryng to force them back into the chicken.

Well that's the way I have been reading it, anyway.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 03:49 PM

Nobody paid any attention to John O'Neill. And nobody is still paying any attention to John O'Neill.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 03:50 PM

"And 'focusing' attention on the Twin Towers (and every other tall building) would have been any easier?"

Far from it. Frankingly, I'm convinced it's not completely possible to protect against every threat, not without doing things that make the Patriot Act look liberal. It's not that drug smuggling, illegal immigration, and the like tell us our security is lax, they tell us it can't be done. You do have to focus on the likely threats and put more emphasis on human intelligence at the likely source of any threat. Better security at our borders is the second line of defense at best and a relatively weak one at that. The bad news is, much as we've learned with people determined to assasinate presidents, if someone wants to attack us badly enough, they'll find a way.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: GUEST,Jim McCallan
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 04:40 PM

The question was a rhetorical one, Strick... Of course the vista is just as imposing. But the defeatist nature of your last statement, and the acceptance you have of this state of affairs,is worrying, Strick.
It provides all the excuse we need to go into another country and sell the idea to the Nation that this is going to make thimgs safer.

I've said it before, $86 billion would have gone a long way if spent revamping Internal Security, instead.
The fact that it was not even contemplated at the beginning of the Bush Presidency, is a question of assignation of priorities, IMO, and in this respect, also, 9/11 could have had a chance of being prevented.

That $86 bn. is only the tip of the iceberg, you know. When was the last time any Government put in a realistic tender for anything? (that question was also rhetorical, incidentally). The longer this goes on over in the 'Axis of Evil' (because the job is far from over, remember), the more drain it will be on the American economy.

If America pulls its troops out of Iraq, as it will someday do, will everybody remember that Iran and Syria were also on the next-to-liberate-list, and wonder where all those plans went?

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: robomatic
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 05:04 PM

I have more than once thought of Thomas Friedman's observation that the scale of the attacks on 9/11 were due to a lack of imagination. OUR imagination.

I think it's pretty clear that, as George Bush was quoted, he didn't have OBL as a top priority. From what I've heard and read, however, the FBI were hardly at the top of their game and did overlook some real danger signs.

In 2001 a television show called "The Lone Gunmen", a short lived spinoff from "The X-Files" had as an episode a government plot involving flying a computer controlled airliner full of people into one of the twin towers. It has a pilot's eye view of the approaching towers at night, and at the last minute our hero takes control and is just able to clear them.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 05:31 PM

"In 2001 a television show called "The Lone Gunmen", a short lived spinoff from "The X-Files" had as an episode a government plot involving flying a computer controlled airliner full of people into one of the twin towers. It has a pilot's eye view of the approaching towers at night, and at the last minute our hero takes control and is just able to clear them."

Shame it had such crappy ratings.

It's not just a lack of imagination, you know. I realize as a boss that part of my job is to keep the people who work for me from getting too carried away with concern for outlandish risks. Some people see problems everywhere and can let their imaginations keep them from accomplishing things; they become too timid and fearful. It's a good thing to keep people focused on the goals and moderating a few primary risks. Then suddenly you get the Discovery disaster or the Twin Towers because we become so used to minimizing the more far fetched risks, we don't recognize when they become real and present.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 07:06 PM

"Then suddenly you get the Discovery (Challenger?) disaster or the Twin Towers because we become so used to minimizing the more far fetched risks, we don't recognize when they become real and present.

You can excuse absolutely anything with that remark, Strick, if you put your mind to it.

I actually agree with a lot of what you say, but not with the same "Well that's just the way it is" kind of complacency.
It is relevant, however, that the 'systemic flaws' the Columbia Accident Investigation Board found, prior to the STS-107 accident, were not which".. one would expect to see [in] an organization if it were trying to change its culture./i>".

If nothing was learned from the Challenger, it was the fault of those people whose responsibility it was to learn those kind of lessons. Where was the hindsight, then?

Columbia could have been prevented, 9/11 could have been prevented, and sharp border guards are always an asset.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 01 May 04 - 01:07 AM

Actually there is a hell of alot more we could be doing to secure our nation without imposing extreme measures on our citizens. Unfortunately it comes down to the bottom line. No-one wants to spend the money on it. Spending the tax money is fine but don't ask us to fund our own security (even though we profit from being more secure).

I pointed out gaps in security years ago (sorry I have to be vague, no idea who may read from this site) to a business. You'd have thought they'd want to take care of them to protect their property and products from thieves and vandals. It would at least have saved them some insurance money. No they wouldn't do it. Too much money up front with too little return in the immediate quarters.

In more ways than one we're at the mercy of our own businessmen.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented: Kean
From: Strick
Date: 01 May 04 - 07:35 PM

" I actually agree with a lot of what you say, but not with the same 'Well that's just the way it is' kind of complacency."

Excuse? Complacency? No, understanding. You try your best and you look hard at your failures to try to understand them. You can't assume you're never going to fail again. Even when we try to avoid the old mistakes, they have a wonderful way of showing up in new clothes.

9/11 was preventable the way my first marriage was -- all the clues were there for anyone looking backward.