memos, memos and still nothing done

[Burgold]

This thread is a bit of a stretch, but a slight one, more like the stretching one might do before a morning jog.

When asked about 9/11, Bush said in a press conference he couldn't think of any mistakes he had made and that he would have handled nothing differently if he had to do it over. We have learned that with hindsight he had much more information preceding the attacks than we ever suspected. In relation to the Iraqi prisoner mistreatment, we have learned that Rumsfield had the info on his desk for months about mistreatment of prisoners and chose either not to act on it or not to read it or to ignore it. His inaction led to embarrassment on the President's part and the continuation of these incidents. This despite Powell's consistant efforts to try to get him to act. I ask you does this negligence of information represent a pattern?

In the prisoner case you had: Multiple letters/memos describing attrocities that would lead to a PR disaster and the continutation of human mistreatment and direct verbal communication to Rumsfield and the Pentagon being more or less ignored... ie no investigation or action. In the case of 9/11 we now know that they knew at least this...

a) chatter about something earthshaking about to happen inside the US terrorist taking flight lessons c) warnings of hijackings with explosives d) Al Qeada operating in the US e) Al Qeada studying New York and Federal buildings for the purpose of attack. f) warning of an iminent attack against the US coming in late Summer. g) a terrorist commenting that they didn't get it this time after being arrested and referring to the World Trade Center

h)quote:

Not an hour ago, I saw on the news that there was intell that Washington D.C and New York were targets and planes could be used to hit buildings!

In both cases, too little was done with the info they had. In both cases the information was there... maybe not enough to stop the attacks of 9/11, but certainly enough to mount an all out investigation. In the latter case, they had every ABC of it. In both cases, administration officials seemed to abdicate their duty, either ignoring it, or handing it off to lowers and paid it too little attention. In the case of the Iraqi prisoners, I don't see how anyone can argue that they did anything but underreact both in Iraq and in Washington. Nothing was done til it hit the press. They knew about dehumanization for months?

That this is a situation that may inspire, deepen and justify feelings of hatred towards the United States and that can be used to fuel hatred or to dispell the notion that we are liberators versus occupiers. Do you think this emboldens the terrorists case against the US? Do you think this increases the numbers of Arabs who would join or at least not hinder new efforts of terrorists.

Bush is not to blame for the 9/11 attacks or what was done to those Iraqis, but the more we hear, the more I ask myself... did he do all he could do? Did he or his administration address these situations adequately or just let them sit figuring they would blow over? Was there more that he should have reasonably done?

[Larry]

As to the "could 9/11 be prevented", I keep drawing a parallel to a plane crash investigation.

After a plane crash, the investigators spend millions of man-hours going over every piece of information about that one, specific, plane. And eventually they conclude that the plane crashed because of a failure in the impulse induction manifold (or some such).

And in every case, if they look hard enough, they will find some underling who said that he thought something needed to be done about that part. Or at least, he wanted to do something to something that could have referred to that part.

(To the great delight of personal injury lawyers.)

I'm not mad at Bush for what he did before 9/11. I'm mad for what he (and pretty much all of the rest of our 'leaders') did after.

[Burgold]

I don't think it could have been prevented either. I am a little frustrated that they didn't do more and that they seem to leave info on their desk or in the conference room unattended too.

[webnarc]

The events of 9/11 could have been prevented, or at least mitigated:

- allowing weapons on planes is a bad idea. Guns were not allowed but box cutters were fine.

- they could have told people (the American public) that there had been some talk about crashing planes into building. Even if this had made people a little panicky, it would have likely let the passengers know how serious the outcome of the hijacking would be so they would have been motivated to fight (like the plane that crashed into the ground). Sitting on this information perpetuated the apathy of the public, given that we all know and accept the reality now.

- they could have investigated the claims that people were learning how to fly planes but had no interest in learning how to land planes.

When I say "they" I refer to the powers that be and not just this administration, but Rumsfield sitting on the abuse information does indicate that the administration could have sat on something important before.

But most importantly, they should have captured or killed Bin Ladden BEFORE they went into Iraq. If you feel compelled to disagree with this fact, tell why leaving that rat-**** alive is the correct way to fight terrorism. He's responsible for the death of 3000 Americans yet he's still out there offering money anyone who will kill American leaders. Help me understand why Iraq is more important than him.

[Kilmer17]

Can anyone imagine the lefts outrage if we had started profiling Arablooking men prior to 9/11.

I believe 9/11 could have been prevented. But the way we could have prevented it wouldnt have been acceptable by the majority of Americans at the time.

[Burgold]

When I say "they" I refer to the powers that be and not just this administration, but Rumsfield sitting on the abuse information does indicate that the administration could have sat on something important before.

but they did sit on 9/11 information, the fact that they knew a-h and in Condaleeza Rice's testimony she answered she was not aware of so many practices... tells me that they were not aggressive or even proactive. Do you remember that part of the session?

Did you know about ...... at the time?

No, I did not.

Were aware of...

I don't think I was...

and it went on for twenty or so questions and this was a republican asking her. Given that they knew that the terrorists were taking flight lessons and planning a hijacking, wouldn't you imagine she or the administration would at least get themselves up to speed or demand to be briefed... Again, the attacks were not their fault and I don't know if anything would have prevented it, beyond luck... but, it sounds like they did not do all they could do. Like Rumsfield, this administration keeps leaving papers on their desk unread until something blows up.