| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front | |
| 9/11 could have been prevented: report | |
| 2003-07-25 | |
The attacks against the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, could have been thwarted months or years in advance, according to a damning report by the U.S. Congress. But everything from inflexible priorities to a lack of communication let Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network carry out the deadly hijackings, concludes an inquiry by the Senate and House of Representatives. The final report, containing more than 830 pages, has two dozen specific conclusions. But missed opportunities and the failure to protect the U.S. from a terrorist strike is the "single bottom line," said Democratic Sen. Bob Graham, who co-chaired the committee. "The attacks of Sept. the 11th could have been prevented if the right combination of skill, co-operation, creativity and some good luck had been brought to the task," Graham told a news conference. "If people want to place blame, there’s plenty of blame to go around," he added, citing everything from proposed budget cuts at the FBI to the military’s refusal to support CIA operations against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Live and learn. Everything that is done from now on will have 9-11 as the backdrop. No use blaming anyone but the OBL bastard. | |
| Posted by:Rafael |
| #15 "Malaise began even before Carter - unfortunately, it occurred in the CIA, as a result of the Church "reforms"." Things started to go bad during the late Ford years. The CIA wasn't the only one affected. Carter nearly destroyed the US military (I was on the inside then - I know from firsthand experience). Military Intelligence units were subjected to so many arbitrary laws and "administrative rulings" it took almost six years for Reagan's team to clean things up afterwards. It boils down to a simple equation: If you want good intelligence, you have to put up with a little stupidity now and then. Too many rules will ensure the right information will never be seen. Too tight a "management" by bureaucrats will ensure that only "favorable" information will surface. Finally, if people are afraid to make a fuss when they think they're right because of the hammer from above, the best and brightest will depart in great haste. You get what you pay for - or what you legislate for. The trouble is, the real world doesn't pay a nickel's worth of attention to our little illusions. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-7-25 8:28:01 PM |
| #14 It's called shooting the wounded... |
| Posted by: Fred 2003-7-25 3:44:12 PM |
| #13 More 20-20 hindsight |
| Posted by: Luigi 2003-7-25 1:45:48 PM |
| #12 Anybody remember Senator Graham before 9/11 urging the changes his report now says would have done some good? |
| Posted by: Matt 2003-7-25 1:41:09 PM |
| #11 Don: uh, I'll take the odd loss of human life (even my own) because I personally FEAR the government getting more efficient in its handeling of information even more. So should you. I both like and trust the current administration, but what about the next bunch of pikers to fall off the political hay cart? |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2003-7-25 12:45:00 PM |
| #10 of course we might never have gottent the frank church "reforms" if Nixon hadnt misused the CIA (some of the abuses the Church commitee went after dated to LBJ and JFK, but if not for CIA actions under RMN these probably would not have generated so much controversy) |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-7-25 11:22:09 AM |
| #9 of course we might never have gottent the frank church "reforms" if Nixon hadnt misused the CIA (some of the abuses the Church commitee went after dated to LBJ and JFK, but if not for CIA actions under RMN these probably would not have generated so much controversy) |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-7-25 11:22:05 AM |
#8 "The attacks of Sept. the 11th could have been prevented if the right combination of skill, co-operation, creativity and some good luck had been brought to the task," Graham told a news conference. And if Grandma had had balls, she'd have been Grandpa. |
| Posted by: BarCodeKing 2003-7-25 10:52:46 AM |
| #7 It goes much deeper and much longer boys. How many times have the intel types been shortchanged, tied down, and separated because the 'civil libertarians' FEAR an efficient gathering and handling of information. Their Orwellian nightmares coupled with local primate turf interests have for years, and will for years, insure that these 'lapses' will continue. |
| Posted by: Don 2003-7-25 9:26:03 AM |
| #6 Does anybody remember Frank Church and all the laws passed to hamstring the CIA? Malaise began even before Carter - unfortunately, it occurred in the CIA, as a result of the Church "reforms". |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-7-25 8:59:12 AM |
| #5 Woulda, coulda, shoulda. This is Bob Graham the Democratic nominee wannabe talking, not Bob Graham the senator. We caught a fair bunch of terrorists before 9/11, but we'll never get 100% of them. Finding guys before they do something is just tough - law enforcement has enough problems getting guys after they commit crimes. We'll never get 100% of the terror operatives before they strike. This is why it's important to go after the financiers, whether they are governments, wealthy businessmen or Muslim charities. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-7-25 8:54:03 AM |
| #4 Does anybody remember Frank Church and all the laws passed to hamstring the CIA? Or how about Jimmy Carter's DCI, Admiral Stansfield Turner, who single handedly managed to destroy moral at the CIA after Bush 41 had restored it in 1976? Or how about an FBI that wanted to become the next Interpol at the cost of counterintelligence? Yes, mistakes were made, but it is sickening to listen to these grandstanding politicians point the finger, when it was their branch of the government that screwed up the intelligence community in the first place. Oh one other thing, during the Clinton years we had 3 DCIs: Woolsley, Deutch and Tenet. Woolsley was studiously avoided by Clinton; Deutch had to be retired because he turned his home PC into classified blog for any spy agency with half a brain, and Tenet (I think the record speaks for itself) a dismal failure. |
| Posted by: Douglas De Bono 2003-7-25 8:50:42 AM |
| #3 Boy, this sounds so misleading. Sure, we could have prevented 911. But what were the chances? Did the report discuss that? If there was one percent chance or even less than that, would the report conclude 911 could have been prevented. Given how language is so thoroughly manipulated in Washington, I suspect we will never get a clear idea. And this Graham character inasmuch as he is saying they are not trying to place blame, they will find a way. And the path will not be pretty. |
| Posted by: badanov 2003-7-25 6:32:09 AM |
| #2 Pearl Harbor was no different. Placing blame solves nothing until after you have defeated the enemy. Graham talks a tough fight...but his words of late ring empty. If he wants to place blame, he should start by looking in his own bathroom mirror. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2003-7-25 2:53:30 AM |
| #1 More details on CNN.com, or anywhere else I'm sure... |
| Posted by: Rafael 2003-7-25 2:35:16 AM |