Replies

I think the wrangling over the content of the film is a side show.

If anyone wants to know what can be best ascertained as to what really happened, all they have to do is pick up a copy of the 9/11 Commission report. Most book stores have them and they aren't expensive at all.

It clearly illustrates the inability of those in the Clinton administration to make a collective choice to take action on Usama, and more importantly to get all the players on the the same team. Too many chiefs were making independent decisions that confounded any real efforts by those who clearly saw the threat. What it all boils down to is a serious lack of leadership among the the white house staff.

Of course, looking at it in hindsight is a lot easier. If they had a crystal ball that told them what Usama would eventually do, I'm sure they would have done things differently.

I truly am not a Clinton defender, however, his administration suffered from some of the same things even the Bush administration does, and that is fear of the consequences from rattling cages.

When you prefer the stats quo, with all it's problems out of fear of consequences for solving them, that's what everyone has to live with. The problem with that is that status quo has consequences of its own.

In short, it takes a pair to solve difficult problems. And because it's difficult to solve them, people usually do something else instead.

The 911 Commission Report?

Okay, if you're willing to accept anything from the mind of Jamie Gorelick- who was especially at fault for constructing the information wall between the FBI and the CIA.

Able Danger was IGNORED on purpose, because it pointed the finger at the power structure of DC. It wasn't just a passive lack of action that led to 911, but an active refusal to deal with known information, from the military to the intel community to Congress to the White House.