9/11 Chair: Attack Was Preventable

CBS ^ | 17 December 2003

[Hal1950]

For the first time, the chairman of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks is saying publicly that 9/11 could have and should have been prevented, reports CBS News Correspondent Randall Pinkston.

"This is a very, very important part of history and we've got to tell it right," said Thomas Kean.

"As you read the report, you're going to have a pretty clear idea what wasn't done and what should have been done," he said. "This was not something that had to happen."

Appointed by the Bush administration, Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, is now pointing fingers inside the administration and laying blame.

"There are people that, if I was doing the job, would certainly not be in the position they were in at that time because they failed. They simply failed," Kean said.

To find out who failed and why, the commission has navigated a political landmine, threatening a subpoena to gain access to the president's top-secret daily briefs. Those documents may shed light on one of the most controversial assertions of the Bush administration – that there was never any thought given to the idea that terrorists might fly an airplane into a building.

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," said national security adviser Condoleeza Rice on May 16, 2002.

"How is it possible we have a national security advisor coming out and saying we had no idea they could use planes as weapons when we had FBI records from 1991 stating that this is a possibility," said Kristen Breitweiser, one of four New Jersey widows who lobbied Congress and the president to appoint the commission.

The widows want to know why various government agencies didn't connect the dots before Sept. 11, such as warnings from FBI offices in Minnesota and Arizona about suspicious student pilots.

"If you were to tell me that two years after the murder of my husband that we wouldn't have one question answered, I wouldn't believe it," Breitweiser said.

Kean admits the commission also has more questions than answers.

Asked whether we should at least know if people sitting in the decision-making spots on that critical day are still in those positions, Kean said, "Yes, the answer is yes. And we will."

Kean promises major revelations in public testimony beginning next month from top officials in the FBI, CIA, Defense Department, National Security Agency and, maybe, President Bush and former President Clinton.

[onemoreday]

...
...GeronL.....you say"

".....This man is not after the truth, he's gonna do what he had already made up his mind to do before he even started this 'investigation'...."

But, how do you know that?

It may be something you want to believe. It may preserve intact your assumptions and parameters of thinking.

But that doesn't make it so.

[Edit35]

I AGREE. It WAS preventable.

If only we had IMPEACHED Clinton in 1998, and then held Al Gore's feet to the fire, we could have prevented AlQaida from gaining strength and PLANNING this attack during the Democrat's watch.

[Proud Legions]

Actually, although what you are saying sounds good to all of us that like their government to be open and forthright with the people, I have to raise a couple of objections you would have to work your way through to do what you suggest:

There is a huge potential problem with opening up daily briefing notes to the public. Much of what is in these briefings could easily give away the sources of the intel. It takes many, many years to develop intel sources, especially human ones. Once they are exposed you lose any ability to tap into that source for years, if not forever.

There may be a way around it, but ONLY if the briefings were viewed by a select few with the right type of clearance.

The fear is that the demand would be for a bi-partisan viewing of the briefing records, and then the intel would be given to a news source from a "deep throat" source, who may not realize that he or she just did our intel network in...all in the name of politics.

Also raises issues of separation of powers btween the three branches of gov't.

Just issues to work though....

[larryjohnson]

love_your_name

[onemoreday]

....
....stands2reason.....

"...TROLL XING....(?????)...."

Is that the same thing as accusing me of "blasphemy?", or "heresy?", or "free thinking?"......or any of the other "names" people use to block their minds from any ideas that might make actual "freedom" imperative?

Your "tag"......stands2reason......
what is the use of "reason" if there are no thoughts in your mind other than the politically correct ones?

What is there to be "reasonable" about?.....(in fact, what is there to be "free" for?), if you believe individuals are here just to be political appendages.

You may claim "conservatism" is merely to repeat the Republican Party Platform and support its candidates. But this is simplistic, idle reasoning.

If you must stand alone, do so. That is why you were given the choice of whether to be courageous, idendepent, and honorable.......this is to be totally honest with yourself and your God.

[Phsstpok]

So is this investigation only going back to January 20, 2001? What about the 8 years of Clinton, or the Carter administration, or the 1972 Munich Games, or the Six-Day war, or maybe 1948 when Israel was founded?

I don't believe this is your intent, but the way you phrase your post sounds like one of the "it's the JOOOOOs fault" litany's.

I take your point about historical context, at least in regards to root cause, but I think we have to go back to that little family feud amongst Abraham's first born (illegitimate) son and Abraham's true son and heir. Kinda reminiscent of the circumstances surrounding another randy old codger named Strom that was in the news the last couple of days, though that seems to have a happier outcome.

[larryjohnson]

Welcome to FR, Brother.

[Ann Archy]

Hello New Freeper.....so you want ALL records open? Even the ones where we have intelligence agents doing their work right now??? Get a grip.....some things MUST remain secret.

What was it the widows wanted...to stop air traffic forever? How would we know when it was going to come down??

Clinton talked incessantly about Bin Laden, but he COULD have had him, but he didn't, and Bush had to pick up the hideous pieces. Dsgusting.

[Ann Archy]

I guess because Halliburton story didn't stick.

[Ann Archy]

Also how about the FIRST WTC bombing that Clinton didn't even visit...let alone DO anything.

[Ann Archy]

Maybe they will look into LOUIS FREEH'S TOTAL INCOMPETENCE!!! He took 6 WEEKS FAMILY LEAVE when a child was born....a MAN with his posiion took 6 WEEKS to BOND with his baby!!!!! LOUIS FREEH is a SCHMUCK.

[kkindt]

Excellent point - everything is preventable if you have enough info and have it in time and have the laws that permit you to coordinate efforts and have bright people thinking instead of fooling around etc.

[Zuben Elgenubi]

I smell the Hildabeast bashing Condie Rice.

[onemoreday]

....
....
".....if...."

The only real "if" here is that...

...IF you want the government to "come clean" about 911, you won't get your way, because the majority of people do not care if the government comes clean or not.

Your post is just another way of saying that you you are not of this group.

Yours is a totally irrelevant comment, (within a slew of irrelevant comments) with one objective....

....to preserve your sense of "peace" concerning 911, without taking the chance of finding out something that might "disturb" you.

This does not strike me as an honorable position. I say that because I want the government to "come clean" concerning 911 and you, with your spurious reasoning, support their silence.

Why do you do that?

FREE REPUBLIC was in the vanguard, questioning the OKC report and its subsequent attack on all our freedoms?

Does a mere change of Administration change that much about government that now we "should" accept anything we are told?

That so many do so, and choose "irresponsibility" is just another simple fact of life, I suppose

[Papabear47]

Thank You.

[Papabear47]

Not sensitive information,I should have been more clear as I told another poster.There are ways to clear up security problems without public disclosure.We,the public cannot be told everything as it would imperil our national well being.

[jeremiah]

Why in heavens name would she need to ground all aircraft? Just a note to the airlines, a word to her boss, and a little back and forth with the CIA and FBI. Ask the Israelis how to go about the business of making planes hijack proof(or close to it). Or ignore the threats, let the worst happen, then say there is nothing that could have been done. That is not only a lie, it is a provable one. If Rice was not informed at all, then of course she could do nothing, but if she had even heard of the plan, she could have at least called all the heads of the airlines, and began a process. It is the least anyone would do. It is part of her job description, she failed, she deserves scorn, but will not get it. Probably for the same reason McNabb gets the kid glove treatment.

[CyberAnt]

You don't suppose .. do you .. that this could be another rope-a-dope ..?? I mean I really thought this might be something worrisome for Bush .. but after listening to Rush today, I have kinda changed my mind about that.

I know the dems will try to make a BIG issue out of this .. especially because Hillary's goons will be all over TV making hay out of it. I know she's willing to do anything to make it appear her husband was not responsible for 9-11.

I just can't help but wonder if Kean is baiting these people ..??

[GeronL]

This might be just a very biased article that took his words out of context. But any investigation about the intelligence 'failure' should start with the late 70's Church Commission. But the media wants to focus on 'that critical day'.

[GeronL]

...IF you want the government to "come clean" about 911,

Your the one with the problem, you won't accept any other answer than the government failed to do something. In fact you seem to refuse to blame the terrorists. It was the law that the CIA and FBI could not share info, Democrats made that law and they defended it, many of them still want that law to be remade, although it was finally undone after 9-11.