[eno_]

It is evident that the AQ plot to hijack and/or explode multiple jumbo jets over the Pacific was both detected and averted. That plot included a plan to crash jetliners into targets on the ground. Stating that 9/11 was unique, except that it was not averted despite various indications it was under way, is clearly false.

[sinkspur]

Stating that 9/11 was unique, except that it was not averted despite various indications it was under way, is clearly false.

What "indications"?

[Alas Babylon!]

Stating that 9/11 was unique, except that it was not averted despite various indications it was under way, is clearly false.

If you were in charge, what would you have done that was politically possible to do?

[Skywarner]

It would seem to me, and I think most Americans, that the 9/11 attacks may have been preventable in a truly academic sense but not in a realistic sense.

The intelligence agencies receive dozens and sometimes hundreds of "hits" a DAY regarding potential threats. How is it possible, without basically shutting down the country infinitum, to prevent any and all attacks. At the time, the plane into a building scenario seemed like one of those check boxes on a list of possible terrorist scenarios. Without HARD and UP TO THE MINUTE INTELLIGENCE, it is virtually impossible to stop a DETERMINED and COORDINATED attack. Ask the Israelis...

As others have asked, the real question shouldn't be was 9/11 preventable but rather was 9/11 reasonably preventable?

If the president, any president, had taken the necessary measures to avert such an attack before it actually happened during the period before 9/11 and did not present HARD EVIDENCE to the nation, the population would have gone nuts!! Today is a different world of course.

I find it unimaginable for any leader, Democrat or Republican (or whatever), to have the capability to ALLOW an attack that has the potential to kill 1,000's or tens of 1,000's without taking action. However, I fully admit that the procedures and the infrastructure to HELP PREVENT such an attack, via COMMUNICATION between agencies and the capacity to collect and decipher HARD INTEL, did not readily exist prior to 9/11. That fact is due to many factors, many of which have already been mentioned here.

If we are to take the argument further, let's consider this: Many experts - and citizens - expect to see a weapon of mass destruction detonated in an urban area in the not so distant future. I'm 36, and I'm regretably certain that such an event will happen within the next decade thanks to the available technologies and determination of some of our enemies. So, since we are reasonably sure that a WMD attack will eventually happen, wouldn't the prudent course of action be to begin evacuating all metropolitan areas and disperse our populations to the countryside? Without HARD EVIDENCE/INTEL, doing so would be perposterous. You get my point.

My $0.02...

[cyncooper]

Stating that 9/11 was unique, except that it was not averted despite various indications it was under way, is clearly false.

I hope you fully support the War on Terror, including our actions in Iraq which are intended to prevent whatever other dastardly deeds that the terrorists, including Saddam Hussein, had planned with our destruction in mind.

You have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight to state flatly that 9/11 was preventable. Perhaps if Clinton had taken bin Laden into custody, as was offered twice, it would have been. Also the Clinton efforts to deal with Saddam were half-hearted and clearly ineffectual. But the implication with the way THIS article is written, no matter what the intent of Kean's remarks was (and it is not clear to me he refers to the Bush administration), is that Bush is to blame, when he is not.