9/11 Chairman Kean: Attack Was Preventable

(CBS) 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.

To find out who failed and why, the commission has navigated a political landmine, threatening a subpoena to gain access to the president's top-secret daily briefs. Those documents may shed light on one of the most controversial assertions of the Bush administration – that there was never any thought given to the idea that terrorists might fly an airplane into a building.

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," said national security adviser Condoleeza Rice on May 16, 2002.

"How is it possible we have a national security advisor coming out and saying we had no idea they could use planes as weapons when we had FBI records from 1991 stating that this is a possibility," said Kristen Breitweiser, one of four New Jersey widows who lobbied Congress and the president to appoint the commission.

The widows want to know why various government agencies didn't connect the dots before Sept. 11, such as warnings from FBI offices in Minnesota and Arizona about suspicious student pilots.

"If you were to tell me that two years after the murder of my husband that we wouldn't have one question answered, I wouldn't believe it," Breitweiser said.

Kean admits the commission also has more questions than answers.

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."

Kean promises major revelations in public testimony beginning next month from top officials in the FBI, CIA, Defense Department, National Security Agency and, maybe, President Bush and former President Clinton.

I guess Tom Kean won't be getting any invitations to the White House anytime soon.

Wow...

Not all that surprising, but I look forward to more coming out. Notice the silence from the right wing of this forum?

RE: Wow...

This has overtones of the 60-year-old controversy over whether the US could - or should - have known about the forthcoming attack on Pearl Harbour.

I find it impossible to believe that senior analysts deliberately closed their eyes to the possibility. I find it quite possible that senior analysts overlooked what turned out to be key information. To me, that's not reprehensible, just human.

And the gravest danger in these inquiries is to judge with the wisdom of hindsight. With hindsight the clues that point to 9/11 are everywhere. Without hindsight, though, what would you glean from that information?

RE: Wow...

why do you PRESUME that the "right wing of the forum" doesn't agree with Mr Kean?

>"I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would

>try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a

>missile," said national security adviser Condoleeza Rice on

>May 16, 2002.

Dr. Rice ought to have someone read the files. Flying airliners in to the WTC was used in several different drills conducted over time. Suicide attacks by hijacked airliners was talked about in the early 80s as a way for a wide variety of terrorists to attack a wide variety of targets.

Hopefully, Chairman Kean and committee will do better than the Warren Commission. If not, the 9/11 attacks will spawn a conspiracy industry that will make the Kennedy assassination aftermath seem inconsequential. Frankly, I think there is more cause for question in the case of the 9/11 attacks.

--EBG

RE: Wow...

What did you expect us to respond to. The article mentioned one thing Condoleeza Rice said, a quote from a widow, and a quote from Tom Kean. He also said there would be revelations next month. Then next month you will hear something. We should then have something to comment on.

Has Kevin Costner announced his movie version? You've seen "JFK", now see the great conspiracy of the 21st century: "9/11"!

The problem is that there are an infinite number of ways the terrorists could attack us. They could bomb building with car bombs, poison the water supply, spray germs from airplanes, put poison gas in subways, and hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings. If you search through the files of the CIA and FBI, I am sure you will find suggestions of these and many, many other ways we could be attacked. Now of course, after Sept 11, we all see with crystal clarity that flying planes into buildings was the real danger and was much easier that we would have immagined. But when these warnings came in DURING THE CLINTON REGIME no one focused on this danger or took measures against it. When the files were dumped on the Bush Administration, again, no one focused on this particular danger. But, after the fact, been preventable. And, as we see it is easy for the Demcrats to say that Clinton's inaction was excusable but Bush's inaction was a big deal. Easy to say, but most people will not be impressed.

>The problem is that there are an infinite number of ways the

>terrorists could attack us. They could bomb building with car

>bombs, poison the water supply, spray germs from airplanes,

>put poison gas in subways, and hijack airplanes and fly them

>into buildings. If you search through the files of the CIA and

>FBI, I am sure you will find suggestions of these and many,

>many other ways we could be attacked. Now of course, after

>Sept 11, we all see with crystal clarity that flying planes

>into buildings was the real danger and was much easier that we

>would have immagined. But when these warnings came in DURING

>THE CLINTON REGIME no one focused on this danger or took

>measures against it. When the files were dumped on the Bush

>Administration, again, no one focused on this particular

>danger. But, after the fact, been preventable. And, as we see

>it is easy for the Demcrats to say that Clinton's inaction was

>excusable but Bush's inaction was a big deal. Easy to say, but

>most people will not be impressed.

The scenario I described above was actually used in several excercises during the Reagan administration. Several high ranking FDNY people, including one killed on 9/11 participated. The whole idea of this particular set of drills was to encourage broadly written emergency plans. We wanted to encourage first responders to have adaptable plans in place and to be able to react to events as they unfolded.

For years, I was on the NEST team. NEST is the Nuclear Emergency Search Team, which is the group charged with locating and preventing nuclear explosions from those with nuclear explosives who shouldn't have them. After years of NEST drills and excercises, a few things became real clear. The odds of a terrorist actually building a nuclear weapon is darned near zero. The odds of a terrorist stealing a nuclear weapon and using it are barely higher but still quite low. The most likely nuclear weapon scenario is a "good cop gone bad" type of situation. The threat from a rogue state which somehow manages to build a few bombies isn't all that large either. Unlike Christmas fruitcake, the life span of a nuclear explosive isn't indefinite.

By the time the 2nd Bush administration began, I'd gone off to a life in private industry. My contacts with my former colleagues have not ended though. An awful lot of people still doing what I used to do strongly hold the opinion that Bush II came in to office determined to force a showdown with Iraq. PLEASE NOTE: This is just me repeating beliefs held by others.

There are all sorts of things terrorists could do, at least on paper. On paper, some of these things even sound pretty good. For many years, many very, very smart people ran around trying an awful lot of them. An awful lot of what you read about what terrorists could do is utter bullshit. You'd end up with more dead bad guys than anything else. (Hey, works for me, whatever it takes...)

The cold, hard reality is that carrying out a spectacular terrorist attack is really hard. If spectacular, large scale terrorist attacks were remotely easy, they'd happen a lot more often.

Many scenarios, including the airliner in to building attack, were very well developed and war gamed extensively. During the late 80s, through the Reagan administration and later the first Bush administration, the belief was strong and growing that terrorist threats would not come from threats requiring an industrial base. Rather, the threats given the most credibility then were those using a nation's own infrastructure against it.

Of all the things to worry about, terrorism isn't all that great of a risk. Yes, a successful attack is scary. This is why they call it terrorism. The terrorists WANT you to be afraid of them. Fear is their real weapon.

So, you end up with a tightrope to walk. Stopping or slowing down terrorists without mucking up the civil liberties of regular Americans. Personally, I think good, regular old fashioned police work triumphs every time. You just have to listen carefully to the front line cops on the beat.

The question before us is, could 9/11 have been prevented? We can not know with certainty, of course. Based on what I've read, I'm kinda leaning toward the thought that the attack could have been prevented. Whatever happened on United 93 kinda shows the fragile nature of the terrorists position in these things.

Endless speculation ensues...

--EBG

The following excerpt is from a blog I read occasionally. I think the man has a good point:

Thursday, November 13, 2003

Subject: Could September 11 Have Been Prevented

Time: 7:57:00 PM EST

Author: lonelawyer

There are people in this country who are convinced that September 11, 2001, could have been prevented. They treat information glowing in the light of hindsight as clear dots that could have been connected beforehand. There are some things that need to be considered, though.

In 2001, before the attacks, there were over 24,000 commercial flights per day. There were over 5000 per day at major airports. There isn't enough manpower in the country to check everyone boarding all those flights.

Additionally, the hijackers used box cutters and plastic knives to take over the planes. Those items were not typically confiscated in 2001. There would have been no way for the government to anticipate that.

Now, let's look at the hijackers. Other than connections to Bin Laden, these men hadn't broken any laws beyond immigration violations. Now, if any of you have dealt with the INS, they weren't typically interested in individual illegal immigrants, and depending upon the part of the country, there might not have been any INS agents close by.

But, to satisfy the finger pointers, let's say that all twenty are targeted and detained. Under Federal law, prior to September 11, illegal aliens are entitled to bond. If they had been detained without bond, the ACLU would have pounced in a heartbeat. We can't racially profile, you know.

Further, even if they had been detained at the planes, they would have had to have been released. They hadn't broken a law. All we would have accomplished is to make September 11 turn into October 18 or something similar.

It might make political points to blame someone, but it is futile and shows a lack of logic. September 11 couldn't have been prevented unless clairvoyants had been permitted to violate the Constitution.

Attack Was Preventable!

You try and pin some blame on the ACLU when the airlines let people board planes who were flying with IDs that were on the CIA's watch list?? I would like to see some 9/11 survivors sue the airlines that let them on!

The simple fact is Bush was on one of his several month-long vacations, even though there was good reason for heightened concern about Al Qaeda and a briefing had crossed important desks in DC with the cover showing a plane ramming a high-rise. This is why Condi's empty-headed 'who could have ever guessed they'd do such a thing' is so fucking cynical and infuriating, and the powers that be are fighting like hell to keep the NSA briefing paperwork sealed.

Please, defend that! Defend the present stonewalling and dismissal of investigations. Then maybe the past kowtowing to the Taliban for a pipeline deal. Those are what I'd love to hear cogent points on!

Not this worthless BS about the ACLU and profiling! No, for the record, I do not want the 'security experts' at airports pulling people simply for race or whim, nor running my credit and medical histories. But they're more then welcome to start with the fucking CIA, FBI and immigration watch lists!

Or is that too expensive? It is after all, government by, for, and of corporate interests! We still have unchecked cargo, we still have second rate equipment in use, and we still haven't caught the person behind all this. But blaming the ACLU... that's what we need from this administration, instead of progress on any of the above, encourage them to work on restricting our civil liberties further!

RE: Attack Was Preventable!

>You try and pin some blame on the ACLU when the airlines let

>people board planes who were flying with IDs that were on the

>CIA's watch list?? I would like to see some 9/11 survivors

>sue the airlines that let them on!

I love how everyone feels instinctively compelled to try to blame somoene for 9/11 - did it ever occur to you that, other than the murderous terrorists who perpetrated this atrocity - that nobody is actually to blame for it?

Nobody has more intense security than Israel - they are miles and miles more militarized and secure than this country has ever dreamed of being - and yet they cannot prevent suicide bombers from exploding themselves and killing lots of other people whenever they feel like it.

The notion that our Government is to blame for not stopping 9/11 is just absurd. It's even more absurd to try to blame the Bush Administration - which was in office a whole 10 months when it happened - and exculpate the Clinton Administraiton, which was in office for 8 years prior to that and implemented none of the measures which prevented 9/11.

Even now, after 9/11, terrorists who want to strike can do so. Short of dismantling all of the liberties which make the United States what it is, that can never be stopped. That's why it's so crucial to defeat terrorism not by turning the U.S. into a Police State, but by uprooting its causes where it grows.

RE: Attack Was Preventable!

Pass the smelling salts. I am going to agree with EVERYTHING that doug wrote!!!!!

Including his final comment about not turning the USA into a police state. Does this mean he's finally seen the light about Guantanamo Bay?

(No, doug, please don't turn this into another thread about that, it's pretty well done as an issue - I was just having a small jibe, that's all, which is what you've done to me occasionally)

RE: Attack Was Preventable!

>Pass the smelling salts. I am going to agree with EVERYTHING

>that doug wrote!!!!!

Drop the salts, bring the defibrillator.

Except for one point:

"That's why it's so crucial to defeat terrorism not by turning the U.S. into a Police State, but by uprooting its causes where it grows."

"Where it grows" echoes the view of the Cheney-Rummy-Wolfie axis that this is a "war" with defined "fronts" that can be successfully waged purely by military means. Reducing the "causes" of terrorism to its perpetrators and their organizations ignores the messy issues of globalization, ascendancy of western economies and cultures, slights to dignity perceived and real, etc., etc. that appear destined to continue motivating terrorism as long as they remain in place.

And this is no appeal to dismantle western capitalism, but only an acknowledgement that fighting terror by military means alone is a fool's game, and a fiscal black hole. As Doug notes, even the steps Israel has taken have had only limited effectiveness.

RE: Attack Was Preventable!

Yes, but only by conducting OPEN investigations (and as a reminder there were NUMEROUS investigation after Pearl Harbor) can we know where/if there were deficiencies in various areas of our government that should be imporved to prevent an even worse scenario.

RE: Attack Was Preventable!

i agree that BLAMING the government or the airlines is built on some pathology of needing to blame SOMEONE. however, i also think that more COULD have been done to prevent this type of attack. maybe it wouldn't have prevented this specific series of attacks, but the entire process could stand some reworking.