English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

The US Spy Chief admitted to Congress yesterday that 9/11 could have been prevented. That's a shocker!

http://www.yahoo.com/ see spy chief. Someone said it was negligence.

Who is responsible for that? Guess Bush can't say it could not have been prevented any longer!

2007-09-18 23:44:29 · 8 answers · asked by cantcu 7 in Politics & Government Politics

By JASON RYAN and THERESA COOK
Sept. 18, 2007

Share Six years after the deadliest attack on U.S. soil, the head of U.S. spy operations admitted to lawmakers that "9/11 should have and could have been prevented."

Director of National Intelligence, Michael McConnell, told members of the House Judiciary Committee Tuesday that "it was an issue of connecting information that was available."
McConnell, explaining that the intelligence community was, at the time, very focused on foreign threats, said the community allowed itself "to be separated from anything that was potentially domestic," and that domestic threats were "not something we [were] supposed to be concerned with."

"Yeah, that translates to negligence," charged committee chairman John Conyers, D-Mich.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3621517&page=1

2007-09-18 23:56:24 · update #1

8 answers

Let us compare and contrast the last two Presidents, who have had to deal with terrorism on US soil.

Clinton- WTC attacked 39 days after he took office- why don't Republicans blame Bush Sr for THAT attack?
Bush- WTC attacked 10 MONTHS after he took office. Had not one anti-terrorism meeting with his staff or the Intelligence community, defunded $150 million from teh FBI's counter-terrorism unit, and spent four and a half of that first nine months in Office in Texas on vacation, instead of doing his job.

Clinton- in response to the attacks on our embassies, the USS Cole and the WTC, ordered the formation of an anti-terrorism unit and adopted their recommendations.
Bush- After the WTC collapsed, Bush refused to allow the formation of an independent 9/11 Commission, unti MASSIVE disapproval from the citizenry forced him to allow it, but he still refused to testify to that Commission under Oath and had to be SUED in Federal Court to produce paprework and documentation needed by that Commission to do ITS job.

Clinton- Had the CIA locate bin Laden after the attacks, but pressure from the Republican Congress forced him to spare bin Laden from attack in Afghanistan.
Bush- Went from "I want bin Laden, dead or alive" to, "I really don't think about him much". Bin Laden, still at large and still producing videos.

Clinton- Introduced several anti terrorism measures, such as chemical signaturing of all explosives (sort of like DNA matching or fingerprinting), so you can always know where terrorists' explosives were manufactured. The NRA put pressure on the Reps to quash this requirement. Clinton sponsored and supported an initiative to make airport screening more effective and thorough and to disallow items of ANY kind which could be conceivably used as a hijacker's weapon- Rep Congress, under pressure from the airline industry, defeated THIS measure. EDIT TO OG- The reason they didn't confiscate boxcutters at the airports is that, thanks to the defeat of the above mentioned measure, box cutters on airline flights were perfectly acceptable and legal.
Bush- his Republican Congress not only defeated a $650 Million appropriation in 2006 to increase screening of cargo at our busiest seaports, Bush actually defended an attempted sale of those same ports to a country which not only appears on Bush's "terrorism watchlist", but is also a country several of the Sept 11 attackers came from and from which funding for those same terrorists came.

Clinton- Promoted democracy worldwide by showing it's advantages and benefits.
Bush- Shoves democracy down peoples' throats, whether they want it or not, claiming to be a "Uniter" while saying, "You are either for us, or against us."

Clinton- went to England to protest the Vietnam War, showing the courage of his convictions.
Bush- Joined the Texas ANG to avoid going to Vietnam, then simply quit going to his required drill dates. Bush was declared a "non-locatee" by the Air Force in 1973 (this is what the Air Force called "AWOL" then). Bush, to this day, STILL has not satisfactorily completed his Texas ANG obligation. Going AWOL (Absent WithOut Leave) during a Time of War is Desertion, a capital offense.

2007-09-19 00:46:59 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

There was alot of information out there. Funny how normal American citizens (see the source list) can put it together from public sources but the US intelligence service cannot.
The info was wrong on 9/11 and it was completely wrong regarding Iraq and WMD's so how is it possible nobody has been held accountable for these massive intelligence failures from apparently the best agencies in the world?
General Myres who was the head of the National air defence system on 9/11 was promoted!! after being in a meeting (ie. doing nothing) till after the pentagon was hit. Good work General. There are numerous cases like this of the top brass being promoted after failure to follow proper procedure on that day. How there has not been a major overhaul of the FBI and CIA after 2 of the biggest intelligence disasters the modern age has seen is beyond me, but then again its Bush after all.

2007-09-22 00:30:41 · answer #2 · answered by spanghead 1 · 0 0

Both Logan and Newark airports had been cited repeatedly for security breeches. I've seen film from 9/11 @ the Logan airport and 2 of the hijackers set off the metal detectors and were still allowed to board the plane without being searched.
The hijackers were all of Middle Eastern descent and had purchased one-way tickets and there's no one in airport security that can question and detain them? I'm not positive about this but haven't all the hijackings that have occurred been by people of Middle Eastern descent? They need to be racially profiled and detained every time they try to board a US airline.
They spend billions for "Homeland Security" and yet continue the same idiotic practices.

I don't blame Clinton or Bush for this. I blame Bush for USING 9/11 to invade Iraq on a false pretext and for using fear to further his own political agenda.

2007-09-19 05:49:24 · answer #3 · answered by Babs 7 · 1 0

easily, by customary vote, u.s. in user-friendly terms voted for Bush as quickly as. earlier I hearth up a team of hardcore conservatives, i visit assert that i'm an self reliant who votes Republican 8 cases out of 10. yet merely because of the fact a newborn-kisser belongs to the celebration I oftentimes help, that would not advise I inevitably help them. George W. Bush grow to be between the main undesirable presidents in our historic previous. no person, even Republicans could help him. A president the two does a stable job or a bad job. Bush grow to be a bad president who left the country a smoldering destroy. I additionally do unlike Reagan. His coverage of supply factor economics is in actuality in charge for the present economic issues. we've not had a stable president for an prolonged time. the two events have been churning out turds. Our final respectable president grow to be Kennedy. No different guy might are transforming into us by the Cuban Missile disaster. u.s. needs to wake the hell up and comprehend that that is not any longer conflicting celebration ideology that is in charge for the horrid state of our u . s . a ., that's the stranglehold that prosperous particular pastimes and multinational companies have on our legislators, Democrat AND Republican.

2016-10-19 02:08:12 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Being that Osama was the planner the Master and the fact Clinton was offered him turned it down. Would rather send cruise missiles to a baby milk factory.

How about the wall that Reno built between the organizations
that outright prevented the different organizations from communicating.

Then a administration that was elected accused of stealing votes, when in reality, Al Gores henchmen wanted the absentee ballot disqualified. Thanks Armed Forces.

The people who should have known it was coming was the previous administration, however they were preoccupied with attacking American citizens burning down houses, killing spouses, and sending a child back to a dictators prison country.

2007-09-19 06:08:32 · answer #5 · answered by Rick D 3 · 0 2

It was a systemic problem that was put in place in a different era in large part by lawyers who didn't want the government conducting surveillance on American citizens and then putting in place further regulations that the FBI, even if they did find something (even by accident ) couldn't share that information with the CIA or other agencies, it was an insane situation that came about in large part due to our complacency about something like this happening here and only reared it's ugly head on that Sept. morning.

2007-09-19 00:17:35 · answer #6 · answered by booboo 7 · 0 1

Try blaming the idiot that prohibited the CIA from doing business with nefarious characters. Mother Theresa had very little inside info on terrorists.

And you people want to sign up for another 8 years of that.

2007-09-18 23:50:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 4

well like many terrorists plots, they could have been stopped if the people who were on the plane would have gotten up and killed the terrorists, many fewer people would have died in total. we have to protect ourselves from terrorist and not rely on our government.

2007-09-18 23:54:31 · answer #8 · answered by anthonygoloub 2 · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers