# New Developments on 9/11: Who can be trusted?



## Everness

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1728246,00.html

This gist of this article is that Mohammed Atta and three other men who hijacked aircraft on September 11, 2001 were identified by the US Government as possible members of an al-Qaeda cell more than a year before the attacks.

Is this true or false? Whom do you believe? 

 The New York Times that publishes this news? 

 The Times that reprints it? 

 Curt Weldon, the Republican Congressman and vice chairman of both the House Armed Services Committee and the House Homeland Security Committee who says he has tried to share this information since September 2001? 

 The unnamed military official that provided the information to the New York Times?

 The 9/11 Commission that did not include the information gathered by Able Danger in its report, which was published last year, even though the Commission learned of its existence in 2003, according to the New York Times.

 The secret military team, known as Able Danger, that recommended that the identities of the four men be shared with the FBI and other parts of the military?

 A spokesman for the US Special Operations Command that told The New York Times that no one at the command now had "any knowledge of the Able Danger program, its mission or its findings"?

Who can you trust or who should you trust nowadays? This is the question.

Fortunately most Americans believe what the government and TV stations say (especially Fox News) so they are naturally and logically exempt from the hard and strenuous intellectual exercise involved in asking and responding to the above questions.


----------



## cuchuflete

Sounds painfully reminiscent of Robert McNamara, Henry Kissinger, and myriad other satraps of the Johnson and Nixon era...inflated "body counts" and declarations that, "we have turned the corner" in a conflict with an elusive enemy.


----------



## astronauta

Everness, I thought I trusted the BBC 

Cuchu, it's so true, did you see a movie called "fog of war"???


----------



## odelotj

Everness, I'd hate to tell you, but many of us intellectuals, do not hold true anything we hear on Fox news. They are a major thorn in my side.


----------



## lsp

Everness said:
			
		

> ....Fortunately most Americans believe what the government and TV stations say (especially Fox News) so they are naturally and logically exempt from the hard and strenuous intellectual exercise involved in asking and responding to the above questions.


Either this concluding remark is just missing the "I'm kidding" smiley face and I have to go and get a virtual-sense-of-humor, or I take issue with your last statement.


----------



## Everness

Do the following. Give anyone a copy of the Times article (link above). Ask them to read it. Then ask them what's wrong with it. Here are some answers you might get. "It's the liberal, biased press." "It's this SOB backstabbing Walden." "It's the 9/11 Commission made up by Democrats and Republicans to cover their asses." "It's the other band of terrorists who run the Pentagon."  Etc. etc. 

But how many reacted the following way?

*Someone here is fuckin'  lying  to  me. Stop bullshitting me and tell me what the hell is going on!*

Very few respond that way. Why? Because most of us don't give a damn about getting to the bottom of anything. No one stops to reflect on what we read. No one even stops to read a newspaper! We just adore our 30' TV news at 6pm or 10pm. We need images and sound because we are goddamn visually oriented! Ah, and please, please keep it short because we Americans have a short attention span! 

Fortunately some of us haven't yet ditched the old tradtion of reading. However, we consider ourselves politically educated because we read two newspapers and a couple of political magazines. We read an article as the one we are discussing, we react or not to its content, and we then move on to the next article. I'm sure that someone at the New York Times, at Congressman Walden's office, at the 9/11 Commission, at the Pentagon, etc. is sitting next to a phone waiting for Americans to react to this article. Guess what? None of the phones are ringing. I'm sure that most of them bet $100 that no one would call and this evening they are $100 richer.

*We, Americans, are collectively a bunch of suckers who enjoy immensely when this type of crap is shoveled up our asses. *


----------



## cuchuflete

A few reactions:

AV- No, I didn't see it. I lived throught the Vietnam War era, and listened to the lies, and read them in the newspapers on a daily basis for years. Democrats and Republicans alike lied to the electorate, to the non-voters, to one another. They may have even come to believe in their own lies, from the repetition of hearing them. Good dogs, said Dr. Pavlov.

LSP- If you read Everness with any frequency, you get to know when he is being acerbic and sarcastic. He was clearly not expressing his real view of things in that last sentence. To the contrary, it was extremely sardonic.

Everness,  

You wrote...





> Someone here is fuckin' lying to me. Stop bullshitting me and tell me what the hell is going on!
> 
> Very few respond that way. Why? Because most of us don't give a damn about getting to the bottom of anything. No one stops to reflect on what we read. No one even stops to read a newspaper! We just adore our 30' TV news at 6pm or 10pm. We need images and sound because we are goddamn visually oriented! Ah, and please, please keep it short because we Americans have a short attention span!



I just assumed that there would be a whitewash of the 9-11 attack.  In other words, I expected lies and half-truths and multiple significant omissions.  

Why?  Many of those in power had much to lose, and could be expected to choose butt coverage over truth.  The intelligence services either (1)didn't have intelligence they should have, and /or (2) had it but didn't share it, and/or (3)shared it but were ignored by other intelligence officials or political types.

The politicians didn't want to get nailed for a painful screw-up on their watch.

The press was pressured not to report the truth.

The press was knowingly fed hogwash.

For all those reasons and more, I'm not surprised by the article you cite.
Am I angry?  No, just saddened that what I expected was what seems to have happened.  It's hard not to be a cynic these days.  Expect the worst, most devious and dishonest and dishonorable behavior from politicians and bureaucrats, and you are unlikely to be wrong.  

Take all of this from one who reads newspapers, but not frequently, and who does not own a television.  I get my news from NPR, CBC, BBC, the internet...including lots of "foreign" press reports, and lengthy analysis essays that friends e-mail to me.  I don't accept any of it wholesale.  

Having lived briefly in Spain during the Franco dictatorship, Portugal during the leftovers of the Salazar era, and Argentina during the Videla tyranny, I have learned to be sceptical about what I read in newspapers, including the N.Y. Times.


----------



## lsp

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> ...LSP- If you read Everness with any frequency, you get to know when he is being acerbic and sarcastic. He was clearly not expressing his real view of things in that last sentence. To the contrary, it was extremely sardonic...


Thanks, but I think post #6 means you might not know Everness that well, either. It clearly supports the original sweeping, insulting, condescending generalization I hoped was sarcasm earlier. Other than bitching out all Americans to a few language enthusiasts, what did Everness do to win back the $100? Not the kind of conversatin' this dumb American cares to join, guess I'll go back to drooling in front of my TV and bending over for the NYTimes. Fellas, I leave it to you two...


----------



## cuchuflete

lsp said:
			
		

> Thanks, but I think post #6 means you might not know Everness that well, either. It clearly supports the original sweeping, insulting, condescending generalization I hoped was sarcasm earlier. Other than bitching out all Americans to a few language enthusiasts, what did Everness do to win back the $100? Not the kind of conversatin' this dumb American cares to join, guess I'll go back to drooling in front of my TV and bending over for the NYTimes. Fellas, I leave it to you two...



He does seem pretty hot under the collar.  Maybe we should all go over to the English forum and discuss the nuances of the verb To Fulminate? I've nothing to add to this thread.

regards,
Cuchu


----------



## Everness

Casi 3000 personas murieron el 11 de septiembre del 2001. Sus muertes no son ni más dignas ni menos dignas que las muertes de los miles de iraquíes en la estúpida guerra de Bush. 

Cuatro años más tarde, los parientes y amigos de las víctimas de 9/11 siguen haciendo duelo por sus muertos. Muchos de ellos lucharon a brazo partido para encontrar respuestas. Pero nadie se hizo cargo de nada y les cerraron las puertas en la cara. Cuando más o menos las cosas se estabilizan en sus vidas, alguien o algo reabre las heridas y le echa sal. El contenido de este artículo es un gran ejemplo. 

No se quién está mintiendo, quién está fabricando falsedades o quién está diciendo la verdad. La verdad es que no me importa. Pero una sola cosa sé: no se juega con el dolor ajeno. Si no les vamos a ofrecer la verdad, seamos misericordiosos y dejémoslos en paz. 

Y si tú, mi querido compatriota, piensas que no le diste la espalda a esas casi 3000 personas y a sus seres queridos sino que hiciste algo para que la verdad que sana saliese a relucir, siéntete en toda libertad de excusarte de esta autocrítica mordaz. Yo sigo creyendo que como comunidad hicimos la vista gorda, nos metimos en nuestras cuevas y nos cagamos en la verdad.


----------



## Edwin

Congress and the Former 9/11 Commission get involved (maybe)


----------



## cuchuflete

For the record, Everness was two days ahead of Yahoo headline news in reporting this.

It is front page on that 'homepage' this morning.


----------



## odelotj

I agree about opening up old wounds being cruel to those who have suffered loss, I can't say whether I believe this article or not. It seems most of the media has an agenda of their own, or an agenda dictated to them by politicians; and THAT my dear Everness is the sad truth. I don't think we'll find out exactly what happened, ever. Maybe in the next lifetime, who knows. Not that I feel I'm an island unto myself, but I try to make my world happy, those around help with that, surely I help them in that respect too. All the while keeping a watchful eye on the corrupt a-holes (I started to put morons here but realized that they've got a bit of cunning and wit if they made it to the top, so I can't honestly say they are morons) who are running things in/for the U.S.


Oh, and, I was discussing this with a friend of mine the other day, here's what he had to say, I wanted to share it:

Stephen: I saw the headline for it yesterday...but I didn't read the story....
Stephen: just goes to show how f**ed up our government is
Stephen: 9/11 was kind of like pearl harbor... MAYBE something could have been done to stop it... but then we wouldn't have been able to go to war with two countries...

Ah, the ever present American cynic....


----------



## Edwin

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> For the record, Everness was two days ahead of Yahoo headline news in reporting this.
> 
> It is front page on that 'homepage' this morning.



I'm not sure just why Everness is so upset over this particular news item.  Things come out when they come out.  History is being revised daily.  Did Richard III really kill his two nephews so he could become king? 

Former Senator Bob Graham (''my" former governor and senator), one-time chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and co-chair of the 9/11 Commission, was quoted in the local paper here that he was not particularly surprised. He said,  "If it's true, it would be yet another example of a missed opportunity to learn about the plot and to blow it up before 9/11."  Full Story Here. 


It is well documented that there were plenty of other missed opportunities.  See, for example, Bob Graham's  book *Intelligence Matters* or Richard Clarke's book *Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror*.  Graham was one of the few senators who voted against the resolution to go to war with Iraq and Richard Clarke was ''the'' advisor on terrorism to both Bushes, Reagan and Clinton.  Both Graham and Clarke are among the most severe critics of the Iraq War.  Both are insiders and reveal numerous problems  in the intelligence community and missed opportunities to prevent the 9/11 attack.

It is inconceivable that either Graham or Clarke would have covered up the information about Able Danger had they known about it.  

I guess we can also lose sleep over the failures of the Roosevelt administration to use the available intelligence to be prepared for the attack on Pearl Harbor.


----------



## Everness

This is how The Boston Globe deals with this story. 

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...lted_on_spread_of_possible_qaeda_ties?mode=PF

First, I believe it’s front-page material but the editor decided to run the story on page 4 under a convoluted, weird and inaccurate title: *US faulted on spread of possible Qaeda ties. * 

Allow me to channel my frustration by reflecting on this title. Later on I'll address some other issues.

First, and according to the Globe, the US, that is, the whole country, that is 295,734,134 people have been found at fault. So now all of us in the US have another reason to feel guilty about. (I know that someone in this forum isn’t going to appreciate the use of the majestic we but this time it wasn't me.)

Second, and according to the Globe, all of us are responsible for spreading Qaeda ties. On the one hand, isn’t it Al Qaeda? Why drop the Al? It’s just two letters? Why do we want to piss the terrorists even more by changing the name of their organization? But most importantly, the Globe says that almost 300 million people have spread possible Qaeda ties. Is this the problem? No. The Globe should learn from the Times, that clearly captured the essence of the story: *'Secret military unit tracked hijackers before 9/11' * That’s what we are talking about. Apparently  someone in the Pentagon was informed about Atta and company, recommended that they were arrested or possibly neutralized (ah, the jargon), but they failed to act on that piece of intelligence.  

This is a new ball game… but we already know the outcome: everything will be swept under the rug.


----------



## Edwin

Everness, don't you think it a little silly to attack a newspaper article on the basis of its headline.  Headlines are well-known fodder for Jay Leno jokes.  

It seems that perhaps at least one staffer on the 9/11 Commission knew something about the Able Danger unit. If you read the books I mentioned by Graham and Clarke, you will see that they already had a lot of trouble getting information  from the CIA and FBI about what they knew and failed to act on.   It was exceeding difficult for the committee to get information from these agencies.  In the end, they were totally stonewalled on some matters. 

I can well believe the story given that a lawyer had told the  Able Danger unit that they couldn't mention Atta's name since he was legally in the country. It may seem silly, but this is a consequence no doubt of reaction to previous abuses by the intelligence services uncovered by the Church Committee . Many rules were established that made it difficult for the FBI, CIA, NSA and others to communicate with each other and to  spy on legal residents ---I suppose that included Atta and friends.  Lots of people were walking on egg shells.  They were damned if they did and now damned since they didn't. 

I see no evidence that this particular fact is being swept under the rug. Let's assume it is true. Then what?  It won't  necessitate any changes in the 9/11 Commission's report.

I went to heard Senator Graham speak shortly after he retired and just after the 9/11 Commission report and his book came out.  He was asked if the new system would work?  His reply was that it would only work if the President sat down with the heads of the agencies involved and commanded them in strong terms to cooperate. But do you think he's going to do that.  We will probably never know:





> (August 7, 2005: Thomas H. Kean, the former Republican governor of New Jersey who led the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission, said he was surprised and disappointed that the White House, the Pentagon, the State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and several other executive branch agencies had failed to respond to requests made two months ago for updated information on the government's antiterrorism programs.    Source of this quote


----------



## lsp

Everness said:
			
		

> ...First, and according to the Globe, the US, that is, the whole country, that is 295,734,134 people have been found at fault. So now all of us in the US have another reason to feel guilty about. (I know that *someone* in this forum isn’t going to appreciate the use of the majestic we but this time it wasn't me.)


hmmm... who could that be...? 



			
				Everness said:
			
		

> *We, Americans, are collectively a bunch of suckers who enjoy immensely when this type of crap is shoveled up our asses.*



Pot, meet black kettle.

Why is it more egregious for one individual, in this case a reporter, to make a sweeping generalization negatively characterizing an entire nation and stating opinion as fact without a shred of proof that any percent, much less a majority or an entirety of its people think/act in a certain way, than for any other individual, say in a language forum, to do the same thing?




> _Michael Corleone: Just when I thought that I was out they pull me back in._​


----------



## Everness

Edwin said:
			
		

> I'm not sure just why Everness is so upset over this particular news item.



Do you know why? Because 9/11 constitutes an unprecedented colossal and massive failure of US intelligence that cost the lives of almost 3,000 persons. Could 9/11 have been prevented? I don't think that's the main issue. There are two other considerations. First, no one is taking responsibility for this intelligence fiasco. Terrorism was rampant in our world before 9/11. Terrorists had already attacked the continental US. The security measures that were adopted after 9/11 should have been instituted at least 10 or 15 years earlier. Second, the 2 main political parties in the US that share full responsibility for failing to protect us --or at least for failing to make a serious attempt to protect us-- haven't yet officially and publicly apologized to the relatives and friends of the victims and to the country at large. 

Richard Clarke was the first, and only, government official to offer a sincere apology to the family members of the 9/11 victims.

“Your government failed you … and I failed you,” Clarke said. “We tried hard, but that doesn't matter because we failed. And for that failure, I would ask … for your understanding and for your forgiveness.”

This acknowledgment and apology will facilitate the grief work of thousands of people affected by this social catastrophe. Apparently politicians from both parties aren't willing to pay the price. This decision might be politically savvy but morally condemnable. 

That's why I'm pissed...


----------



## cuchuflete

Pot, kettle, cauldron....here I go back into the frying pan.



			
				Everness said:
			
		

> Do you know why? Because 9/11 constitutes an *unprecedented* See Edwin's mention of Pearl Harbor. colossal and massive failure of US intelligence that cost the lives of almost 3,000 persons. Could 9/11 have been prevented? I don't think that's the main issue. There are two other considerations. First, no one is taking responsibility for this intelligence fiasco. Terrorism was rampant in our world before 9/11. Terrorists had already attacked the continental US. The security measures that were adopted after 9/11 should have been instituted at least 10 or 15 years earlier. Second, the 2 main political parties See my first post in this thread...but I differ with you a little.  It was not the parties, _per se_, but elected and appointed gov't. officials and bureaucrats...same outcome, but let's put the blame where it belongs.  This was not a matter of any party policy or tactic.  It was government.   in the US that share full responsibility for failing to protect us --or at least for failing to make a serious attempt to protect us-- haven't yet officially and publicly apologized to the relatives and friends of the victims and to the country at large.
> 
> Richard Clarke was the first, and only, government official to offer a sincere apology to the family members of the 9/11 victims.
> 
> “Your government failed you … and I failed you,” Clarke said. “We tried hard, but that doesn't matter because we failed. And for that failure, I would ask … for your understanding and for your forgiveness.”
> 
> This acknowledgment and apology will facilitate the grief work of thousands of people affected by this social catastrophe. Apparently politicians from both parties aren't willing to pay the price. This decision might be politically savvy but morally condemnable.
> 
> That's why I'm pissed...


----------



## Everness

Edwin said:
			
		

> I'm not sure just why Everness is so upset over this particular news item.  Things come out when they come out.


I believe that naivete is a good quality in this world of ours permeated by cynicism and duplicity, so I'll keep my comments to a minimum. You state that things come out when they come out. This is an interesting application of the hands-off approach of free-market economy to the world of truths and lies. However, I think that there are forces in this particular market that deliberately want to keep a lid on certain topics. So if you don't proactively and intentionally research, probe and investigate, many things will remain forever in the dark. However, I know that Bubba would agree with your take on how crap should reach the surface --the natural way--and, if given a choice, would have rejected the idea of appointing a special prosecutor... 





			
				Edwin said:
			
		

> It is inconceivable that either Graham or Clarke would have covered up the information about Able Danger had they known about it.


Inconceivable? Mmmmmmm... too strong a word. I would rather use the adjective unlikely. After all one is a politician (do I need to elaborate?) and the other one provided national security advice to four U.S. presidents: Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Not exactly your Washington outsider...





			
				Edwin said:
			
		

> I guess we can also lose sleep over the failures of the Roosevelt administration to use the available intelligence to be prepared for the attack on Pearl Harbor.


This is a great argument to deflect responsibility. We hide behind past failures to justify current and future failures. I'm sure that some asute official or agency will use that same argument to account for their inability to prevent the next terrorist attack on our soil. I think this is the wrong approach. We should learn from past failures to prevent future failures. The good news is that 9/11 was a wake-up call to the intelligence community and apparently they are stepping up to the plate. Of course with a little help from the Patriot Act and some non-orthodox interrogation techniques...


----------



## Edwin

Everness said:
			
		

> Do you know why? Because 9/11 constitutes an unprecedented colossal and massive failure of US intelligence that cost the lives of almost 3,000 persons. Could 9/11 have been prevented? I don't think that's the main issue. There are two other considerations. First, no one is taking responsibility for this intelligence fiasco.


What would ''taking responsibility" mean?  Suppose that Carter, Bush the first, Clinton and Bush the second were all willing to take responsibility. Just what would that entail?  Would you be happy if they just say, "I take responsibility. I failed to protect you and I'm sorry."?  I have always been a little puzzled by the meaning of "I take responsibility''--especially when people say it but there are no consequences.  



> Terrorism was rampant in our world before 9/11. Terrorists had already attacked the continental US. The security measures that were adopted after 9/11 should have been instituted at least 10 or 15 years earlier. Second, the 2 main political parties in the US that share full responsibility for failing to protect us --or at least for failing to make a serious attempt to protect us-- haven't yet officially and publicly apologized to the relatives and friends of the victims and to the country at large.
> 
> Richard Clarke was the first, and only, government official to offer a sincere apology to the family members of the 9/11 victims.
> 
> “Your government failed you … and I failed you,” Clarke said. “We tried hard, but that doesn't matter because we failed. And for that failure, I would ask … for your understanding and for your forgiveness.”



It is ironic that Richard Clarke, one of the few who seriously tried to do something, but wasn't listened to, was the only to apologize.  But I'm not sure that it really accomplished anything.  



> This acknowledgment and apology will facilitate the grief work of thousands of people affected by this social catastrophe.


Well, I know something first hand about grief due to indifference and negligence of authorities.  Sure an apology would be nice (which I never got), but I really don't think it would have helped my grieving process.  


> Apparently politicians from both parties aren't willing to pay the price. This decision might be politically savvy but morally condemnable.



Again what would paying the price mean? Resignation? 



> That's why I'm pissed...



So lack of an apology pisses you off?  That still doesn't explain why the recent revelation about what Able Danger knew tells us anything really new. It's just one more example of how we failed to see the writing on the wall and do something to prevent the attack.

It seems to me that in any halfway open society it is impossible to defend successfully againt suicide bomb attacks --no matter how good your intelligence might be.

Consider for comparison the situation in Israel. They are constantly attacked successfully by suicide bombers. Are you upset that the Israeli government doesn't  resign en masse each time there is a new bomb attack.  I am sure that so far as defending themselves they are doing all that is humanly possible to defend against the attacks. Yet the attacks continue.  

I ignore here the question of whether or not a non-military solution might be more successful in Israel and in the US.


----------



## Everness

¡Ay carajo, no se qué es más fácil (o difícil): discutir contigo o con el cuchu! Como dijo Santa Evita: "Volveré y seré millones". 



			
				Edwin said:
			
		

> What would ''taking responsibility" mean?  Suppose that Carter, Bush the first, Clinton and Bush the second were all willing to take responsibility. Just what would that entail?  Would you be happy if they just say, "I take responsibility. I failed to protect you and I'm sorry."?  I have always been a little puzzled by the meaning of "I take responsibility''--especially when people say it but there are no consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> It is ironic that Richard Clarke, one of the few who seriously tried to do something, but wasn't listened to, was the only to apologize.  But I'm not sure that it really accomplished anything.
> 
> 
> Well, I know something first hand about grief due to indifference and negligence of authorities.  Sure an apology would be nice (which I never got), but I really don't think it would have helped my grieving process.
> 
> 
> Again what would paying the price mean? Resignation?
> 
> 
> 
> So lack of an apology pisses you off?  That still doesn't explain why the recent revelation about what Able Danger knew tells us anything really new. It's just one more example of how we failed to see the writing on the wall and do something to prevent the attack.
> 
> It seems to me that in any halfway open society it is impossible to defend successfully againt suicide bomb attacks --no matter how good your intelligence might be.
> 
> Consider for comparison the situation in Israel. They are constantly attacked successfully by suicide bombers. Are you upset that the Israeli government doesn't  resign en masse each time there is a new bomb attack.  I am sure that so far as defending themselves they are doing all that is humanly possible to defend against the attacks. Yet the attacks continue.
> 
> I ignore here the question of whether or not a non-military solution might be more successful in Israel and in the US.


----------



## Edwin

Everness said:
			
		

> ¡Ay carajo, no se qué es más fácil (o difícil): discutir contigo o con el cuchu! Como dijo Santa Evita: "Volveré y seré millones".


Pero lo empezaste tú.


----------



## Everness

Edwin said:
			
		

> Everness, don't you think it a little silly to attack a newspaper article on the basis of its headline.  Headlines are well-known fodder for Jay Leno jokes.



I didn't attack the article --actually it's a great article-- but the idiotic headline. Editors spend hours coming up with a headline... and I think this is exactly what happened! As a result, they came up with this headline that 1) doesn't reflect the content of the article and 2) absurdly blames an entire nation for something that, if true, a handful of Pentagon officials did. 



			
				Edwin said:
			
		

> I can well believe the story given that a lawyer had told the  Able Danger unit that they couldn't mention Atta's name since he was legally in the country. It may seem silly, but this is a consequence no doubt of reaction to previous abuses by the intelligence services uncovered by the Church Committee . Many rules were established that made it difficult for the FBI, CIA, NSA and others to communicate with each other and *to  spy on legal residents ---I suppose that included Atta and friends. *  Lots of people were walking on egg shells.  They were damned if they did and now damned since they didn't.



You are wrong on this count but you have company.

*What some argue*: Because of concerns about pursuing information on "U.S. persons'' — a legal term that includes U.S. citizens as well as foreigners admitted to the country for permanent residence  — Special Operations Command did not provide the Army information to the FBI.  

*The answer*: If the team did identify Atta and the others, it's unclear why the information wasn't forwarded. The prohibition against sharing intelligence on "U.S. persons'' should not have applied since they were in the country on visas — they did not have permanent resident status.

I rest my case...


Source: http://www.startribune.com/stories/1576/5551867.html


----------



## Everness

lsp said:
			
		

> Pot, meet black kettle.
> 
> Why is it more egregious for one individual, in this case a reporter, to make a sweeping generalization negatively characterizing an entire nation and stating opinion as fact without a shred of proof that any percent, much less a majority or an entirety of its people think/act in a certain way, than for any other individual, say in a language forum, to do the same thing?



It is not more egregious; it's just as egregious. Capisce??


----------



## Everness

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Pot, kettle, cauldron....here I go back into the frying pan.




Originally Posted by Everness
Do you know why? Because 9/11 constitutes an unprecedented See Edwin's mention of Pearl Harbor. What's unprecedented is the intelligence fiasco. Let's not forget that we are talking about two different types of war: conventional vs. unconventional. On the other hand, before Pearl Harbor Japan hadn't attacked us. But the same terrorist group that planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks had already struck American targets within and without the continental US. Our intelligence community was either lazy and/or incompetent.  colossal and massive failure of US intelligence that cost the lives of almost 3,000 persons. Could 9/11 have been prevented? I don't think that's the main issue. There are two other considerations. First, no one is taking responsibility for this intelligence fiasco. Terrorism was rampant in our world before 9/11. Terrorists had already attacked the continental US. The security measures that were adopted after 9/11 should have been instituted at least 10 or 15 years earlier. Second, the 2 main political parties See my first post in this thread...but I differ with you a little. It was not the parties, per se, but elected and appointed gov't. officials and bureaucrats...same outcome, but let's put the blame where it belongs. This was not a matter of any party policy or tactic. It was government.  This is my understanding of how the US works. America belongs to a group of powerful corporations. They have trusted the country to two parties: Republicans and Democrats. These two parties have a mandate from their bosses who, by the way, have powerful lobbies in Washington just in case politicians forget for whom they are working. Their mandate is to staff the three branches of government --the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial-- with their own people. Every now and then the system allows some loose canons to be appointed like the socialist congressman from Vermont. Why? To give the appearance of diversity and pluralism. My point? Anyone on this continuum is responsible for 9/11. For instance, what was the FAA and Congress doing before 9/11 regarding aviation security? 

*In the absence of any recent aviation security incident and without "specific and credible" evidence of a plot directed at civil aviation, the FAA's leadership focused elsewhere, including on operational concerns and the ever-present issue of safety. FAA Administrator Garvey recalled that "every day in 2001 was like the day before Thanksgiving." Heeding calls for improved air service, Congress concentrated its efforts on a "passenger bill of rights," to improve capacity, efficiency, and customer satisfaction in the aviation system. There was no focus on terrorism.*

http://911.gnu-designs.com/Chapter_3.3.html


 in the US that share full responsibility for failing to protect us --or at least for failing to make a serious attempt to protect us-- haven't yet officially and publicly apologized to the relatives and friends of the victims and to the country at large.


----------



## Everness

Everness said:
			
		

> This is a new ball game… but we already know the outcome: everything will be swept under the rug.



Another of my prophecies that came true... I'm good at this! 

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...sertion_about_911_hijacker_unverified?mode=PF

For those of you who aren't Americans, I need to explain that we (with the exception of you know who, those he/she frequents, or many in his/her sphere of aqcuaintanceship)  take things at face value, especially when it comes to statements issued by our government. 

If the Pentagon says that they were unable to validate assertions that a secret intelligence unit identified Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta as a terrorist more than a year before the attacks, we don't see the need to probe further. 

Our approach to life can be summarized in the following words: "It's time to put things behind us and move forward."


----------



## Jonegy

Just a little question from  " t'other side of t' Pond  (Yorkshire  )

After 9/11 there was some concern over here over what would have happened if our Canary Wharf (London's skyscraper  ) had been hit.

One of those investigative documentories on TV questioned architects, works departments etc; and came up with the answer (to the best that I can remember) that a maximum of two or three floors of Canary Wharf would have been affected because of the building structure.

They then went on to show that in the case of the WTC, each floor was pinned only at the corners and that as each floor collapsed,  it took the next one with it.


If this theory is anywhere near the truth it would make the score :-

                        Al Qaeda 1000  :  2000  Architects & Works Dpts 

As  " intelligence "  has been part of your discussion - I wondered if this had been brought up over on your side.


----------



## lsp

Everness said:
			
		

> ....For those of you who aren't Americans, I need to explain that we ...


Déjà vu. Once again your "we" does not include this American, those I frequent, or many in my sphere of aqcuaintanceship. I really do wish you would learn to speak for yourself on these matters.


----------



## cuchuflete

Slight change of focus, though not of topic.  The night of 9-10, I sat and had a conversation with a friend.  On the morning of 9-11 he died at his place of work: WTC.

No party politician's or elected or appointed official's apology would mean squat to me.  

I grieve for a lost friend.  I lament the stupidity of a government which did so little to prevent his death.  More hollow words from that crowd would impress me as much as 
W's latest declaration of "progress" and "necessity" in Iraq.

Talking pond scum doesn't do much for my feelings.


----------

