Daddy4UdderSlut
Posts: 240
Joined: 4/2/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Chaingang At the same time the final report of the 911 Commission is just crap. Even the commission itself complains of being thwarted at many turns in their investigation. The person that chaired the commission, former NJ governor Thomas Kean, has since published a book entitled "Without Precedent" in which he affirms that 911 was "preventable." Kean writes that the 9/11 Commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by officials from The Pentagon and Federal Aviation Administration during the investigation that it considered a separate investigation into possible obstruction of justice by Pentagon and FAA officials. Given that, of how much value is the report of the commisison supposed to be? Kean's book is an admission of sorts, the report is "craptacular" at best. The only thing that I believe that I saw there was a lot of people who didn't do their job well, covering their own asses to avoid responsibility. Like Condi Rice, who was given priority information on Al Qaeda from the get-go by Counterterrorism Chief Richard Clarke as well as a strategy for dealing with them, and just put the whole Al Qaeda issue on the back-burner. When asked point blank questions about this... she had two strategies - righteous indignantion "I can't beleive you're asking me that question!", and amnesia... Sadly, she fended off the most pointed questions without giving any good answers. Like Bush and Cheney themselves, who refused to appear before the panel, and finally only agreed to appear together (no inconsistencies), privately, and off-the-record. If that doesn't scream ass-covering, I don't know what does. Does that mean they planned the 9/11 attack? No. But it is consistent with the story of Richard Clark and others that they didn't place any priority on Al Qaeda until after the attack, even though their own Counter-terrorism experts advised them otherwise.
|