9/11 could have and should have been prevented

This entry was published at least two years ago (originally posted on December 18, 2003). Since that time the information may have become outdated or my beliefs may have changed (in general, assume a more open and liberal current viewpoint). A fuller disclaimer is available.

Hot damn. It’s sounding more and more like the upcoming investigation into the events preceding and surrounding Sept. 11, 2001 is going to cause some major firestorms — and could seriously damage Bush’s reelection efforts.

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.

[…]

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.”

The public testimony begins next month, and will be worth watching very, very closely.

(via Kos)

7 thoughts on “9/11 could have and should have been prevented”

  1. It gets worse, when you factor in that Bush may well have known ahead of time about the possibility. Not to mention the fact that David Kay is now stepping down, after finding more weapons of mass destruction in his pocket lint than in Iraq.

  2. Why don’t you mention the many times that Clinton had to stop Bin Laden, but chose not to? For some reason though people like to think that Bush was the one and only person who had the ability to prevent the attacks.

  3. Richard: Probably because bush is in power now, and was in power when it happened. From what I understand Clinton had information about the possibiliity of terrorist strikes when he was in power, and also passed that information over to the new administration.

    Of course, bush and co have had the joy of using the deaths of 3000 people to justify just about anything they want. Need a bigger budget for weapons programs, air bases, destroying american citizens rights? Just invoke 9/11. Clinton was a bastard as well, but as it’s been said before, “nobody died when clinton lied.” In fact, from what I understand clinton was just as bad for raping the environment and such as bush, but that doesn’t excuse the current leader.

    Disclaimer: Not an american :)

Comments are closed.