Could `second-guessers' have prevented 9/11?

[jbfam4]

Could `second-guessers' have prevented 9/11?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/oped/chi-0403290370mar29,1,7961985.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed

Need to register to read article
Dennis Byrne. Dennis Byrne is a Chicago-area writer and public affairs consultant
Published March 29, 2004


If the "government" knew that the terrorists planned to fly planes into the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, would today's critics of past actions have ordered all flights grounded that day and the World Trade Center evacuated? If the "government" had implemented such unprecedented action, thereby preventing the attacks, would todays second-guessers have said back then that the failure of anything to happen was proof that our president was not just stupid and a cowboy, but also delusional? And if those measures had only postponed the attack until, say, 10/11, would today's carpers, in President Bush's shoes, have had the courage to impose another round of tough security measures for that day? And again and again, until the measures failed, which was the only way to prove that the measures were needed?


How many of the critics who say that President Bush is being too aggressive today are simultaneously accusing him of not being aggressive enough before 9/11? How many of those who insist that President Clinton didn't do enough would have been the first to accuse him, if he had been more aggressive, of trying to "wag the dog" to deflect attention from his impeachment?

Sure, government failed. But how could it have succeeded? All the yapping that we hear today about violations of our civil liberties, the "reckless cowboy" Bush and American jingoism are nothing to the hysterics that we would have heard if government had imposed the steps necessary to stop the original 9/11. Especially when those steps were based on nothing more than the conclusions of government intelligence services. If Democrats are to make the Bush "failures" a part of their campaign, then they and their presumptive nominee, Sen. John Kerry, must explain what they would have done to stop the terrorists.

Yet scapegoating continues in high gear. For the past week, Americans have been subjected to politics, journalism and punditry at its worst and most simple-minded. Gnarling partisans and a media either unwilling or incapable of asking the right questions have all positioned themselves on top of Mt. Know-it-all, as if being able to pin blame on someone really answers the most important questions. As we glare at each other across the political chasm, we have removed our focus from defeating our common enemy. Just as the enemy would plan it.

----------

E-mail: [e-mail]

[boobooday]

1. Second guessers, or people trying to do their jobs?

He sets up straw man after straw man. For him, the fact that it might not have been prevented justifies doing nothing.

He claims that "Patriot Act" type measures would have been required, and all flights would have to have been grounded that day. That's not what Richard Clarke says. If every airport had the photos of the two known Al Qaeda suspects, and every law enforcement agency had them, they might well have been apprehended before September 11th using the usual law enforcement methods. Clinton-era CIA/FBI stopped the plot against LAX without shutting down the airport.

I would like to know what this guy thinks the "real important questions" are. And actually, it was the completely partisan impeachment trial of Bill Clinton that probably distracted most from the fight against the rise of Al Qaeda.

ARGH!

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[lutherj]

2. If the Bush* administration had paid attention to the warnings and

issued an alert to the FBI and the intelligence community asking for any leads regarding potential hijackings and the few hijacker's names that had been supplied by foreign nations, then all the various clues would have been given priority, and it's possible that they would have uncovered the plot before it happened. I don't think that Patriot Act measures would have been necessary. The reason the dots were not being connected is that Bush* had downgraded the priority of the fight against terrorism (IMHO).

[StClone]

3. Don't question, don't protest, don't change leadership

Apparently 9-11 didn't happen because of anything we could have prevented. It was a purely random act like a meteor strike. :crazy:

Cover it deep, move on nothing to be seen nothing to learn. Unless we ca blame Clinton and war protesters for it.

[HFishbine]

4. What a hack (straw man argument as premise)

What a lame argument. To advance his pathetic argument he pretends that the only alternative to inaction would have been to ground the airlines and evacuate the Trade Centers. I'll leave Mr. Byrne's musings to those who never completed 9th grade and are incapable of logical thinking.

[tom_paine]

6. Notice he is a "public affairs consultant" i.e. Professional Liar

He is very adept at constructing and out-arguing his own Straw Men.

He undoubtedly knows how to purposefully invoke lies and lying refutations to lend verismilitude to a lie.

[sadiesworld]

5. Summer of 2001:

-Unprecedented level of intel indicating imminent terror attack
-George Tenet feels as if "his hair is on fire"
-Clarke attempting to piece together meetings w/o benefit of authority to call national security principals together

-The monkey decides it is a good time to take the longest presidential vacation in 40(?) years.

[Miss Authoritiva]

7. Sure, government failed ....

"Sure, government failed. But how could it have succeeded?"

You got me. Okay then, cancel the color-coded charts. Dismantle the Department of Homeland Security and send Ridge back to Pennsylvania. Shred the Patriot Act (fine by me). Let those poor bastards out of Gitmo (also fine by me). Issue pinkslips to the newly hired Arab translators and student visas to Saudis who want to attend flying schools. Fling open the cockpit doors, and hand out the box-cutters.

[Martin Eden]

8. Dennis Byrne is a RW hack

I stopped reading his column in my daily paper (Chicago Tribune) two years ago. The last thing this hack would ever do is take an objective look at the facts or consider any concept that doesn't support his partisan spin.

The column he wrote (two years ago) was "Who cares why they hate us?" -- in his narrow mind, there was nothing to be gained by attempting to understand why Islamic militants would want to kill Americans.

He definitely subscribes to at least one of Big Brother's slogans from 1984:

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH