Skip

9/11 report preview
December 17, 2003 4:39 PM   Subscribe

9/11 report preview "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." We must wait till January for the full report.
posted by jbou (17 comments total)

 
Well then, here's a preview of my outrage at the Bush administration's shortcomings:

Those bastards should be in jail for their criminal negligence in the light of the facts presented in the preview.

Seriously though, is anyone still unclear on the utter ineptness of this administration? The lies that contradict each other? The pat-on-the-back, nod nod wink wink old boy network that's making Dick and George's business pals even fatter and richer than they already were?

Nope, didn't think so.
posted by fenriq at 4:57 PM on December 17, 2003


Why on earth would the director of an investigation come out and say anything before a report is issued? Doesn't that seem like the stupidest thing you could possibly do? We have no way of checking his statements so he just looks like an ass making baseless accusations.

It'd be like a police detective saying "Oh god, O.J. totally did it. I'm positive he killed her, it's as clear as day, and you can read about it eventually when I write it up."
posted by mathowie at 5:04 PM on December 17, 2003


"...is anyone still unclear on the utter ineptness of this administration? The lies that contradict each other? The pat-on-the-back, nod nod wink wink old boy network that's making Dick and George's business pals even fatter and richer than they already were?"

As to whether they are unclear or not, I don't know, but I think about 50 percent (give or take a few points) are in denial. It's hard to pick one stat.
posted by wsg at 5:45 PM on December 17, 2003


It'd be like a police detective saying "Oh god, O.J. totally did it.

I get your point, but that comparison doesn't work for me. We've already determined who did it, so there is no presumption of innocence to protect. This is a review of how it was done and how we prevent someone else from doing it again. And since 9/11 is being constantly spun for political purposes, if the commission is confident in this statement before the rest of the report is ready, I think it's appropriate to share with the public. I would prefer a staggered release of the official report, myself.

According to Max Cleland, the White House has been stonewalling the commission, and the media has been very timid in reporting on that fact. Maybe Kean is finally fighting back.
posted by homunculus at 5:57 PM on December 17, 2003


you can read about it eventually when I write it up

...in my senses-shattering, tell-all autobiography, brought to you by Random House Publishing, next spring!

It does seem a bit strange, but if the report really is revelatory, I can understand the urge to talk about it too. Still, wildly unprofessional to play hinty-hint, yeah?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:40 PM on December 17, 2003


There is another issue in addition to this premature commission ejaculation: why have the "inept" intel people been kept at work, earning good salaires with the confidence, seemingly, of our president?
posted by Postroad at 6:47 PM on December 17, 2003


you can read about it eventually when I write it up.

You think they're still writing a massive report like this when they're supposed to release it in January? It's not like they're writing an essay for high school and they're going to finish it at 2AM the night before it's due. They're probably spending the entire month of December just on last minute cosmetics. The report is done and the guy has read it.
posted by badstone at 7:07 PM on December 17, 2003


Why on earth would the director of an investigation come out and say anything before a report is issued?

To assure that the public knows what will be in the document. One can imagine the B administration trying to do everything in its underhanded power to change, stop, edit, discredit-in-advance, or destroy the upcoming report. Good work, Gov. Kean.
posted by caraig at 7:24 PM on December 17, 2003


Heads will fall. They have to. It won't be GWB.
posted by stbalbach at 8:16 PM on December 17, 2003


There is another issue in addition to this premature commission ejaculation: why have the "inept" intel people been kept at work, earning good salaires with the confidence, seemingly, of our president?

Because they aren't nearly inept as the Pentagon and its friends would have you believe, and if they were let go they'd tell you and me who is?
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 8:45 PM on December 17, 2003


Dubious Link Between Atta and Saddam
posted by homunculus at 11:05 PM on December 17, 2003


"....Coughlin himself places the trip as the summer of 2001.

 The problem with this, say U.S. law enforcement officials, is that the FBI has compiled a highly detailed time line for Atta's movements throughout the spring and summer of 2001 based on a mountain of documentary evidence, including airline records, ATM withdrawals and hotel receipts. Those records show Atta crisscrossing the United States during this period—making only one overseas trip, an 11-day visit to Spain that didn't begin until six days after the date of the Iraqi memo."

I love the punchline of Homunculus' story - a thriving fake Iraqi "secret documents" business which gives the Americans exactly what they are looking for!

Two things - weren't Atta's travels around the US being funded, at the time, by the head of the Pakistani ISI -who also travelled to the US, in the week before September 11, 2001, to meet with prominent Senators and Congressman and Bush Administration officials? What's that all about, anyway? At the very least, it suggests that we may see more attempts on Musharref's life.

The fake Atta/Saddam documents illustrate one of the most successful new political tactics of the Rovian Bush Administration - send up, with fanfare, a story known to be false - simply for the PR effect because it's known that while the initial story will get wide coverage in the US media, it's subsequent debunking will get only light coverage and so the false story will stick in the minds of many Americans who missed it's debunking. Another such tactic is the "guilt by proximity" approach in which GW Bush or a high Bush Administration official, while making a public address, jams "Terrorism" and "Saddam" or "Iraq" close together - without making any strong claims that they are related at all! This is how Americans came away with the impression that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the September 11th attacks. The airing of the fake Iraqi documents served to keep that confusion alive in the minds of many.

It raises another question - as with the faked "Niger-uranium" documents, one has to wonder if the ability of the US to ascertain the veracity of documents is so feeble as it would seem.

After all, haven't US intelligence agencies been dealing with exactly this sort of problem since the US Civil War - and probably long before that? In fact, isn't the use of such disinformation as old as the human race? So why the seeming keystone-cop incompetence?

Or is it intentional ? * slow drum roll *

Could it be.....SATAN ?! (asked the Church Lady....)
posted by troutfishing at 5:38 AM on December 18, 2003


Daily Kos has some good commentary on this, with one of the thoughts being that they'll spin it as a Clinton failure (which is a crock), but that it'll backfire. I'm sure Rove is already at work and ready to move the blame somewhere else (Tenet?).
posted by amberglow at 5:46 AM on December 18, 2003


I just hope the report comes out, in full, at least 6 months before the 2004 election. It seems to me that it wouldn't take much political manevering by Bush & Co. to stifle this report until after the election, citing national security concerns.
posted by yesster at 6:36 AM on December 18, 2003


Man, it's a good thing Bush doesn't read the papers. He'd be steamed if he found out about this.
posted by soyjoy at 9:20 AM on December 18, 2003


"We spent $100 million on Whitewater [Clinton’s pre-presidential financial scandal]. Only $3 million has been spent on investigating September 11! It’s not about ‘getting Bush’—I’m no fan of Bill Clinton either! In a democracy it’s always about us—and what we’re willing to let people get away with."
posted by homunculus at 3:47 PM on December 18, 2003




« Older "What a Crappy Present"   |   NWOBHM!! Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post