Yeah.....the warnings were given by the BUSH ADMINISTRATION to the FAA and the airlines. Just like they said all along. And there's nothing in there new. Nothing that disputes the fact that all these warnings were non-specific as to where, when and how. I can remember just after 9/11 all the Dems whining that the Bush administration had all these warnings and didn't pass any of them on the the FAA and the airlines. Well......this is just more proof that they (*)(*)(*)(*) sure did!

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Why? It's actually positive for the Bush administration. It backs up their original claims that the warnings they did get.....non-specific as they were.....were ALL passed on the FAA and the airlines. Just as they said from Day One. So, there's nothing in there that would have changed an election.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

throughout the whole government. Trying to pin too much on Bush is unfair. One man cannot be expected to know all the things going on in a government our size. They got us. It happens. It's really not Bush's fault and it seems silly to blame him.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

I don't see anything he could have done in his 232 days in office to prevent it.....short of actually intercepting the actual plans or getting something real specific to act on.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

With 20/20 hindsight he could have prevented it. But people don't get that option. With all that "noise" and the fact that none of the agencies were coordinated and all of them had to deal with thousands of "warnings", none of which happened (outside of one), I think it's not realistic to expect Bush could do anything. I don't blame him in the least.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

From the very first warning that was haphazardly passed along to the FAA in April 2001 (or even better, if Condi Rice had taken seriously and implemented the terrorists threat report and plan given to her by Richard Clark in January 2001), if only the Bush administration (specifically the National Security Adviser -- Condi Rice -- after all that was her job) had not just turned the warnings over to the FAA, but turned them over to both the CIA and the FBI and said, let's seriously investigate any reports of terrorists in the US, of any terrorist in any way connected with aviation -- it would have been a week or less before all the FBI reports of arabs taking flight training that only involved flying the plane, not takeoffs and landings, the entire 9/11 conspiracy could easily have been tracked down and stopped in their tracks.

Instead Condi Rice spent the summer of 2001 touting America's need for a missile defense system and lost track of the warnings and failed to do her job.

Please don't tell me that 9/11 could not have been prevented -- it's very easy to see how a coordinated warning from the National Security Advisor to all national security organizations (just the FAA wasn't enough by a (*)(*)(*)(*) mile) would have revealed the plot and captured the hijackers and then exposed the details enough that airport security could have been increased to meet the threat long before 9/11.

Surely if Gore had been in office for 9/11, you wouldn't hear the Republicans claim how 9/11 was unforseeable.

Well, this conservative would... I don't even really blame Clinton for anything terror related either... these muderous freaks have been targetting freedom in all countries for years.

__________________
I was banned from godlike productions(over 400 times)... and loved it.

"I haven't made you angry, have I?" -Malcolm Reynolds

SLADE GORTON, Commission member: Now, since my yellow light is on, at this point my final question will be this: Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25th of 2001, based on Delenda, based on Blue Sky, including aid to the Northern Alliance, which had been an agenda item at this point for two and a half years without any action, assuming that there had been more Predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that that had all been adopted say on January 26th, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?

CLARKE: No.

GORTON: It just would have allowed our response, after 9/11, to be perhaps a little bit faster?

CLARKE: Well, the response would have begun before 9/11.

GORTON: Yes, but there was no recommendation, on your part or anyone else's part, that we declare war and attempt to invade Afghanistan prior to 9/11?

CLARKE: That's right.


http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB...B147/index.htm

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Of course 9/11 could have been prevented. But the question for me is whether it could have REASONABLY been prevented. I don't think so, except for maybe the people at the airport, who should have taken away the box cutters. There are so many warnings, so many memos and so many boogiemen it's not easy to pick THE one. Did people drop the ball? Yes. But with all the balls in the air I can see how it happened.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.