Report Reveals Lapses Before 9/11 Attacks

[StrongBad]

WASHINGTON - Prior to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the CIA (news - web sites) failed to act on intelligence it had about hijackers, the FBI (news - web sites) was unable to track al-Qaida in the United States, and key National Security Agency communications intercepts never were circulated, a congressional investigation has concluded.

But even had these and many other failures not occurred, no evidence surfaced in the probe by the House and Senate intelligence committees to show that the government could have prevented the attacks that killed more than 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.


A 900-page declassified version of the report being released Thursday was expected to provide fresh details of the Sept. 11 plot and government failures but no "smoking guns." Excerpts of the report were provided to The Associated Press before its official release.


"Anybody who makes an assertion that this could have been prevented is making a political statement because there is no evidence, no information that was shared with the top people in our government that could have led them to believe this was going to happen," said Rep. Ray LaHood (news, bio, voting record), R-Ill., a House intelligence committee member. "It wasn't there."

More: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030724/ap_on_go_co/attacks_intelligence&cid=512&ncid=716

At first glance it looks like this report is a whitewash. It's dissapointing because it had been getting hyped for so long as something that would detail Bush's incompetence.

[meegbear]

1. good quote ...

"Anybody who makes an assertion that this could have been prevented is making a political statement because there is no evidence, no information that was shared with the top people in our government that could have led them to believe this was going to happen," said Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill

So when rush, sean, etc. do the "Blame Clinton" sctick, give 'em this.

[arcos]

2. RATE WITH A 5!!!

Also, a very important part:

Sen. Bob Graham (news, bio, voting record), D-Fla., asked if he thought the Sept. 11 attacks could have been prevented, said on CBS' "The Early Show" he thought the answer "is probably yes. The most significant set of events, in my opinion, are in the section of the report that has been censored and therefore won't be available to the American people."

[noonwitch]

5. I assume that the censored part refers to the late John O'Neill's...

accusations that the Bush regime told him to "back off" investigating bin Laden? The reason he quit his promising career with the FBI to go work as head of security at the WTC?
If this is an investigation, why are parts of the results being censored from the public?

[snippy]

3. It is "a single seamless scandal."

From today's Wall Street Journal:

Democrats including Mr. Graham, a former Intelligence Committee chairman and current presidential aspirant, say questions about how the White House used intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq are merging with Sept. 11 intelligence issues into a single seamless scandal.

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB105900909639432200,00.html?mod=politics%5Fprimary%5Fhs

[Rose Siding]

4. So a Democrat's conclusion is "political"

while the repub's isn't? Do I have that right?

-Even though the report illuminates failures, the repubs with their crystal ball, KNOW the attacks couldn't have been prevented? Oh, yeah. THAT'S not "making a political statement". :silly: