9/11commission wants both Bush and Bill

[Donutboy 0]

Unlike some on this board, I want the truth and nothing but the truth about the failings of 9/11. Along with George W. Bush, Bill Clinton has also been called to testify before the 9/11 commission. Al Gore and Dick Cheney are also slated to testify. If Bush OR Clinton were guilty of complicity by ignoring terror threats, I want to know about it. The best thing this nation can do to make us safer is find out HOW the attacks on 9/11 happened. Don't hide the results of this finding. Don't take our freedoms in the name of national security and bury the findings of this study if it'll provide answers on what went wrong and how we can prevent it from happening again.

9/11 panelists eye Bush, Bill

By JAMES GORDON MEEK

DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON - The federal 9/11 commission has formally decided to ask President Bush and former President Bill Clinton to meet with the panel and to extend its investigation by several months.

Vice President Cheney and former Clinton veep Al Gore also would be called, a spokesman told the Daily News yesterday.

Chairman Thomas Kean and Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton will approach the four men, said spokesman Alvin Felzenberg. The request to appear is just that, a request, and not a legal subpoena.

Felzenberg said if Bush and Clinton agree, the sessions likely won't be in public. It was unclear yesterday whether any of the four would agree to show.

He also said that because of alleged stonewalling by the Bush administration and by Mayor Bloomberg's office, some commissioners want to extend their probe past the May deadline for the final report, while others are against any extension, Felzenberg said.

The White House and several agencies have been threatened with or issued subpoenas in recent months, making it hard to finish by spring, some 9/11 commission members argue.

Kristen Breitweiser of Monmouth County, N.J., whose husband, Ronald, died in the World Trade Center attack, said there should be an interim report if the probe is prolonged.

Getting an extension could be a political headache for Bush if the final 9/11 report is issued in the summer. Kean, a Republican, has said the report will name names and point to failures in the Bush administration.

The White House proposed greenlighting the extension if the commission would agree to release the report after the November election, but then officials pulled back the offer, Newsweek reported yesterday.

National Commission on Terrorist attacks Upon the United States

[TitanTiger 20,542]

Let's just say that all of the above testify before this commission. If they find that Clinton ignored warnings, passed up opportunities to capture Bin Laden or otherwise cripple Al Qaida's ability to pull something like this off, and so on...but find that the Bush Administration committed no such errors in action or judgment, will you accept that? Or will you just swallow the soon to follow avalanche of wailing and teeth-gnashing sure to follow from the DNC and every other liberal interest group out there?

[Donutboy 0]

Let's just say that all of the above testify before this commission.  If they find that Clinton ignored warnings, passed up opportunities to capture Bin Laden or otherwise cripple Al Qaida's ability to pull something like this off, and so on...but find that the Bush Administration committed no such errors in action or judgment, will you accept that?  Or will you just swallow the soon to follow avalanche of wailing and teeth-gnashing sure to follow from the DNC and every other liberal interest group out there?

If the commission finds that Clinton was solely the one to blame, I'll accept their findings. Will you accept the findings if it finds that Bush was to blame or even shared responsibility?

9/11 is the greatest tragedy to hit our nation since Pearl Harbor, which we now know we were warned about. To avoid future Pearl harbors or 9/11s, I think it's imperative that any failings in our government by ANY person responsible, be they Democrat or Republican, needs addressing.

[War Eagle 96 10]

All I know is that there were indications that terrorists might use planes to fly into buildings prior to 911, it's called kamakazi, or whatever. So what? And it's logical to figure they'd fly the planes into tall buildings...how would that have helped us?

What could have been done about it? Are you saying that you believe GWB personally knew what was going to happen on 911 as far as flight numbers, times, targets and the date? With anything less than the info in the previous sentence, tell me what we could have done, no matter who was president.

[War Eagle 96 10]

Anyone?

[Donutboy 0]

All I know is that there were indications that terrorists might use planes to fly into buildings prior to 911, it's called kamakazi, or whatever. So what? And it's logical to figure they'd fly the planes into tall buildings...how would that have helped us?

What could have been done about it? Are you saying that you believe GWB personally knew what was going to happen on 911 as far as flight numbers, times, targets and the date? With anything less than the info in the previous sentence, tell me what we could have done, no matter who was president.

1) Beef up airline security.

2) Increase screening to stop passengers with weapons of any kind, including items that can be used as weapons.... say 4 or 5 non-citizens with box cutters.

3) Have sky marshalls added to flights.

4) Do background checks on people wanting jobs at airport security.

5) locking doors on cockpits.

6) Have the Air National Guard on alert for hijackings and keep them out of the airspace of big cities.

OR....

1) Ignore the threat.

No one was given flight times, numbers, etc..... but there are things that could have been done to help POSSIBLY have prevented this tragedy. We took NO steps!!

[War Eagle 96 10]

Sounds noble, but it seems to me pre-911 was such a different time in terms of American citizens' view on security. I try to think back and it just seems there would have been a huge outcry over "rights" if that kind of security had been imposed with no specific threat.

Two questions:

1. Do you support profiling "mediteranian-looking" folks going through security at airports, if they look "supicious" to security? The way things are now they're not allowed to do that because, you know...it's insensitive.

2. Did you speak out about Clinton for not doing anything for beefing up security after the trade-center bombings during his administration?

BTW I really respect that you anwered this question, because folks on your side of the issue really have no grounds for accusing GWB for knowing...it's just goofy.

[TxWarEagle 3]

Its always important in causal analysis to remember that its easy to connect the dots after the fact.

The focus needs to be on prevention of reocurrence rather than assigning blame. OSHA expects that of us in the manufacturing industry when we have accidents. We should expect the same.

Anything else distracts from the above goal of any incident investigation.

[Tiger Al 0]

Its always important in causal analysis to remember that its easy to connect the dots after the fact.

The focus needs to be on prevention of reocurrence rather than assigning blame.  OSHA expects that of us in the manufacturing industry  when we have accidents. We should expect the same.

Anything else distracts from the above goal of any incident investigation.

So, you're saying that after OSHA investigates one of your accidents and finds that the company was negligent of OSHA regulations that they wouldn't impose and enforce any penalties associated with the regulations? They would just tell your company what you needed to do to avoid breaking the regulations in the future and move on?

[texaubie 0]

So, you're saying that after OSHA investigates one of your accidents and finds that the company was negligent of OSHA regulations that they wouldn't impose and enforce any penalties associated with the regulations? They would just tell your company what you needed to do to avoid breaking the regulations in the future and move on?

If the problem had been going on for years, would OSHA go after the manager that had been on the job for 8 months or the one that had been on the job for the previous 8 years?

[Tiger Al 0]

So, you're saying that after OSHA investigates one of your accidents and finds that the company was negligent of OSHA regulations that they wouldn't impose and enforce any penalties associated with the regulations? They would just tell your company what you needed to do to avoid breaking the regulations in the future and move on?

If the problem had been going on for years, would OSHA go after the manager that had been on the job for 8 months or the one that had been on the job for the previous 8 years?

I don't know because I don't work for OSHA. It's possible, if not probable, that it could be both. However, I wasn't trying to draw a parallel between OSHA and Clinton/Bush, but, simply asking a question.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

And there is quite a bit of difference between KNOWINGLY and DELIBERATELY violating OSHA rules and discovering a whole new set of safety issues after an accident occurs. There may be small minor violations that when taken individually might not amount to much, but when compounded on each other, led to a major issue, so those small issues should be monitored differently in the future to prevent a reoccurrence of the major one.

Seems to me that repeated failure to correct a KNOWN safety hazard (aka, not interrupting your golf game to give the go-ahead to arrest Bin Laden) is a far more egregious error than not taking immediate action on some utterly nebulous information that may or may not be real (if indeed that happened - we KNOW the golf game incident happened).

[texaubie 0]

The fact is that Bush's reaction to terrorism was to take the fight to the enemy. Clinton lobbed a few cruise missles and ran down the hall to chase an intern.

My main point was that Bush was not on the job long enough to correct ALL the problems left by the man before him. 9/11 was planned long before Bush stepped in office. Once the plan was put into action, its very difficult to stop.

[Tigermike 3,078]

The fact is that Bush's reaction to terrorism was to take the fight to the enemy. Clinton lobbed a few cruise missles and ran down the hall to chase an intern.

My main point was that Bush was not on the job long enough to correct ALL the problems left by the man before him. 9/11 was planned long before Bush stepped in office. Once the plan was put into action, its very difficult to stop.

Well said!

[TxWarEagle 3]

I don't know because I don't work for OSHA. It's possible, if not probable, that it could be both. However, I wasn't trying to draw a parallel between OSHA and Clinton/Bush, but, simply asking a question.

OSHA is much more concerned about the SYSTEM failures, and the ORGANIZATION failures than about failures of the individual now a days. My company will get fined, but not much against individuals.

For years, someone got hurt we fired them. Too many people got hurt, we fired the manager, but never fixed what was wrong. We were too concerned with blame rather than prevention of reocurrence.

So, in my opinion, a Bush or Clinton witch-hunt will not solve what caused 9-11.

[CCTAU 3,355]

And there is quite a bit of difference between KNOWINGLY and DELIBERATELY violating OSHA rules and discovering a whole new set of safety issues after an accident occurs. There may be small minor violations that when taken individually might not amount to much, but when compounded on each other, led to a major issue, so those small issues should be monitored differently in the future to prevent a reoccurrence of the major one.

Seems to me that repeated failure to correct a KNOWN safety hazard (aka, not interrupting your golf game to give the go-ahead to arrest Bin Laden) is a far more egregious error than not taking immediate action on some utterly nebulous information that may or may not be real (if indeed that happened - we KNOW the golf game incident happened).

Once again J-preg has given the most insightful response. Just because there is a possibility that something bad could happen from a situation on the job, does not mean it's an OSHA violation. OSHA can only step in IF there is an OSHA violation. Now, after it happens, OSHA can add it to the list.

So like J-preg said (paraphrase), if we had been invaded by martians, then we probably would have had prior knowledge of that also. The amount of false or idiotic info coming in is staggering. Yes, this was a possibility, but we didn't figure it was probable. More probable than martians? Sure. But if they invade, the liberals will claim Bush "knew" about that also.

And I could just see the government implementing all of those safe-guards at that point in time. The backlash would have been huge. And mainly from liberals bashing Bush for "slowing" the economy!!!!!

[Tiger Al 0]

So, in my opinion, a Bush or Clinton witch-hunt will not solve what caused 9-11.

The families of over 3000 people might be inclined to disagree with you if it is shown that 9/11 was predictable beyond the theoretical realm.

[CCTAU 3,355]

So, in my opinion, a Bush or Clinton witch-hunt will not solve what caused 9-11.

The families of over 3000 people might be inclined to disagree with you if it is shown that 9/11 was predictable beyond the theoretical realm.

Yeah. That's what we need. Another 3000 idiots suing the president. The government nor the president planned or put those guys in the planes. When will people reallize tha bad $hizmotztu happens all the time and there is not anyone to blame. We love to be a blameful society. You wanna blame somebody, blame the rag-heads. It's their people and religion. And before you get on that one. Just remember. When Mcvey blew up the Okla building it was OK to blame the redneck militias.

[TxWarEagle 3]

The families of over 3000 people might be inclined to disagree with you if it is shown that 9/11 was predictable beyond the theoretical realm.

Everything is predictable beyond the theoretical realm after the fact. NASA looked foolish after the Shuttle desintegrated above east Texas. It would have been easy to blame top administration and move on, but they identified numerous design flaws, systemic "culture" flaws in NASA, then some personal mistakes. Not all led to the incident, but combined proved to be the root causes.

Vengence is ok, that's what civil courts are for. But, it cannot play a role in incident investigation.

Again, assigining blame makes us feel better, but it doesn't solve the problem.

[War Eagle 96 10]

.....shown that 9/11 was predictable beyond the theoretical realm.

So Tiger Al, let me pose this again:

All I know is that there were indications that terrorists might use planes to fly into buildings prior to 911, it's called kamakazi, or whatever. So what? And it's logical to figure they'd fly the planes into tall buildings...how would that have helped us?

What could have been done about it? Are you saying that you believe GWB personally knew what was going to happen on 911 as far as flight numbers, times, targets and the date? With anything less than the info in the previous sentence, tell me what we could have done, no matter who was president.

Are you actually saying that it is possible that Bush knew flight numbers, times, targets and the date?

[Donutboy 0]

Sounds noble, but it seems to me pre-911 was such a different time in terms of American citizens' view on security. I try to think back and it just seems there would have been a huge outcry over "rights" if that kind of security had been imposed with no specific threat.

Two questions:

1. Do you support profiling "mediteranian-looking" folks going through security at airports, if they look "supicious" to security? The way things are now they're not allowed to do that because, you know...it's insensitive.

2. Did you speak out about Clinton for not doing anything for beefing up security after the trade-center bombings during his administration?

BTW I really respect that you anwered this question, because folks on your side of the issue really have no grounds for accusing GWB for knowing...it's just goofy.

Sometimes it takes me a while to answer responses on here. I'm limited to early morning access. I also apologize for missing some responses to my posts; limited time. I'll answer both of your questions as best that I can.

1. Do you support profiling "mediteranian-looking" folks going through security at airports, if they look "supicious" to security? The way things are now they're not allowed to do that because, you know...it's insensitive.

Good question and I don't know if I can truely answer that one. You don't have to profile anyone to increase security. Ask for a drivers license as proof of citizenship and be more willing to search those who aren't. Explain to the American people why security is being beefed up and they'll allow it.

2. Did you speak out about Clinton for not doing anything for beefing up security after the trade-center bombings during his administration?

The WTC bombing happened approximately five weeks into Clinton's first presidency and there doesn't appear to have been ANY warnings that the WTC might come under attack in 1993.

[Donutboy 0]

.....shown that  9/11 was predictable beyond the theoretical realm.

So Tiger Al, let me pose this again:

All I know is that there were indications that terrorists might use planes to fly into buildings prior to 911, it's called kamakazi, or whatever. So what? And it's logical to figure they'd fly the planes into tall buildings...how would that have helped us?

What could have been done about it? Are you saying that you believe GWB personally knew what was going to happen on 911 as far as flight numbers, times, targets and the date? With anything less than the info in the previous sentence, tell me what we could have done, no matter who was president.

Are you actually saying that it is possible that Bush knew flight numbers, times, targets and the date?

I think what he's saying is that our Air National Guard could have been on alert to divert hijacked airplanes away from major cities. You don't need flight numbers or departure times to be on heightened alert for hijackings. All you need is a plan in place for such an event.

[TitanTiger 20,542]

The WTC bombing happened approximately five weeks into Clinton's first presidency and there doesn't appear to have been ANY warnings that the WTC might come under attack in 1993.

He didn't ask you about what Clinton knew before the bombing of the WTC. He asked if you spoke out about a lack of increased security measures AFTER the bombing.

[Donutboy 0]

And there is quite a bit of difference between KNOWINGLY and DELIBERATELY violating OSHA rules and discovering a whole new set of safety issues after an accident occurs.  There may be small minor violations that when taken individually might not amount to much, but when compounded on each other, led to a major issue, so those small issues should be monitored differently in the future to prevent a reoccurrence of the major one.

Seems to me that repeated failure to correct a KNOWN safety hazard (aka, not interrupting your golf game to give the go-ahead to arrest Bin Laden) is a far more egregious error than not taking immediate action on some utterly nebulous information that may or may not be real (if indeed that happened - we KNOW the golf game incident happened).

Once again J-preg has given the most insightful response. Just because there is a possibility that something bad could happen from a situation on the job, does not mean it's an OSHA violation. OSHA can only step in IF there is an OSHA violation. Now, after it happens, OSHA can add it to the list.

Having freshly mopped, wet floors isn't an OSHA violation but common sense would tell you to put up a sign warning of such. If someone tells you of a safety problem and you fail to act upon, are you absolved of all responsibility because there wasn't an OSHA violation?

[War Eagle 96 10]

I think what he's saying is that our Air National Guard could have been on alert to divert hijacked airplanes away from major cities. You don't need flight numbers or departure times to be on heightened alert for hijackings. All you need is a plan in place for such an event.

But times were different pre-911, that's what I'm saying. At the time, protocol was to comply with hijackers and take them wherever they wanted to go. Because, up until 911 a hi-jacker was just wanting you to take them to Cuba or whatever and get the US to release political prisoners or something.

I think that you and Al are being intellectually dishonest here. Your looking at the past through the filter of today's knowledge. Whether there was "chatter" about flying buildings into planes or not prior to 911, it doesn't change the fact that nothing like this had EVER happened before. You can't prepare for EVERYTHING that MIGHT happen....period.