Ashton Carter Predicted 9/11

[CJCRANE]

Excerpt from Politico:

Here’s Carter in a 1998 essay in Foreign Affairs, co-written with Philip Zelikow, who would later be executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and former Deputy Defense Secretary John Deutch:

“An act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America's fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, this event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures, scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either further terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently."

LINK to Politico: http://www.politico.com/morningdefense/1214/morningdefense16322.html

LINK to original 1998 article in Foreign Affairs magazine:

Catastrophic Terrorism: Tackling the New Danger
"iMAGINING THE TRANSFORMING EVENT"

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/54602/ashton-b-carter-john-deutch-and-philip-zelikow/catastrophic-terrorism-tackling-the-new-danger

[Itchinjim]

1. Sorry, nobody could have predicted 9-11.

Just ask Condi Rice.

[Igel]

2. Nobody did predict it.

Even Carter said basically, "imagine what would happen if." It's a nice hypothetical. At best he predicted the possibility of something on the scale of 9/11. Which is what the August briefing predicted.

That's a long ways from a prediction: "There will be a catastrophic attack that will kill thousands at once" would have eliminated a dirty bomb threat, poisoning, or infrastructure attacks.

Even "... and it will happen in 2001 ..." would have been a great improvement and meant that we'd have draconian implementation of anti-terrorist measures only for one year: increased surveillance and monitoring, routine check-point stops, limits on the purchase of certain things, immigration limits and routine investigations, etc., etc. That civil libertarians under Clinton would have reveled in, no doubt. That he "predicted" this in 1998 means that we would have had them for 3 years before the first event happened in this timeline--and since there was no clue as to when the danger had passed, we'd have continued to have them in a long-term fit of paranoia.

"... in NYC..." would at least have put all the checkpoints in NY State and entries to the city, plus restricting the restrictions in civil liberties and surveillance to flights and trains heading into the city.

"... using airplanes ..." would have eliminated the checkpoints on the ground.

This was my same response to the August 2001 "prediction" that Bush II ignored. Had he taken the steps necessary to prevent 9/11, there'd have been a huge outcry, with massive numbers of EOs needed because the Congress wouldn't have gone along with him. The intelligence was very, very non-specific--9/11 could have happened in NYC or in Los Angeles or in Baltimore, at a port or at a railroad station, it could have happened in 2001 or 2002, it could have involved Saudi or Swedish citizens or Indians. It could have been a take-over at a large hotel using small bombs and slug-throwers (as in India) or using large vehicle-borne bombs (as in OK City) or planes or a biological or radiological device or ... Astrologers get their fans by making vague predictions that are accurate only in hindsight, when what's unknowable has become butt-obvious and people have forgotten (or have a motivation) to forget that what was unknowable really was unknowable.


In fact, now that 9/11's happened there's still the possibility of another 9/11. After 9/11 actions were taken to prevent a 9/11, and few liked them after a few minutes. It was easy to point out how those particular actions may have prevented another 9/11, but wouldn't stop another event on the same size but using a different means from 9/11. Even then, there were those that pointed out how easy it was to get around many of the "safeguards" put in place after 9/11.

It's too early to beatify Carter. Much less canonize him.

[billhicks76]

5. Condi Lied

What really pissed me off about her, other than her refusal to testify under oath, was her denial that they couldn't fathom planes being used as bombs. But I myself watched CNN in the summer of 2000 of a report about the G8 Summit on the island of Genoa in Italy. The US put anti-aircraft guns all around the tiny island because they were worried someone might hijack a plane and fly it into the meeting. I saw this myself on television. They are LYING. People need to stand up and say it without fear of reprisal or mockery.

[CaptainTruth]

6. Condi also apparently never heard of a little thing called WW II.

They couldn't imagine airplanes being used as bombs/missles against US targets?

It only happened thousands of times in WW II. Did her school not mention kamakazi pilots?

[billhicks76]

7. True But They Had Specific Info This Time

They already were strategizing about hijacked planes used as weapons one year before 911. One thing I've learned about liars...when they lie about things they are usually also lying about a lot more.

[Fearless]

3. "More urgently" means what?

That's the million dollar question. Bombs?

[billhicks76]

4. Wow...And Who Doesn't Think It Was An Inside Job?

Oh right...people who are afraid to stand up because they could be perceived as acting outside the hive. The Leviathen wasn't supposed to be an instruction manual.