Let's be realistic here; this inquiry is totally unnecessary, isn't it? I, at least, believe it's pretty darn clear why people didn't see 9/11 coming. No, it wasn't because of anything Bush did. It wasn't Clinton either. Here's the real reason:
People didn't care about fighting terrorism before 9/11.
And I don't just mean nobody in office. I'm talking about the American people. The evidence was out there for everyone to see - it was not secret. There were Time Magazine articles about the threat of chemical or biological attacks, there were editorials every time an attack occurred somewhere, and there were books like Jihad vs. McWorld that warned of the threats. But it just didn't register. I remember I had once tried to convince my friends that our military had no reason to worry about attacks from nations like China, and that the real threat would be terrorism in the future. They said I was dumb. That was the attitude people had prior to 9/11 about terrorism. The fact of the matter is, people rarely start to worry about something a lot until something terrible happens to make them.
We, the people, elect our leaders to do our bidding. It is our concerns that dictate the priorities of the government. Thus, if we were not freaking out over terrorism, there is no reason to think the government should have been fixating its eye upon terrorism either. If anyone at all is to blame, it is most definitely US.
Hopefully some interesting suggestions will turn up as a result of this panel, but as far as what really went wrong, I think it's clear. A panel is not needed to tell us.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I mostly agree with you, for once.
I would add, too, that sometimes the "bad guy" just plain outsmarts you and wins one.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Yeah, you just basically said the exact same thing my mother-in-law said to me yesterday afternoon. Luckily for you, she's pretty wise.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Actually there is one good use of this panel. It is to combat the stupid theory that "President Bush knew all about it, or caused it (or the Isreali's did) and used it as an excuse to 1)gain support on his crusade against Muslims, 2)Invade Iraq for its oil, 3)Get relelcted, 4)work on being king of the world.
Where this report may say the same thing Clark said, "Terroris was a high priority, but it wasn't an Urgent one until 9/11" I think it will go far to clear him of the outrageous charges.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
oh my god I agree with tresopax.
Except for the "Blame the US" part. But that's in every Tresopax post.
Other than that, Tres is dead on.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I agree with just about everything you said. But even though we do know the major reason why things went wrong, America not caring, I think that the panel could offer valuable insight into things that could be fixed to help improve intelligence communication. I do think that the panel needs to move away from blaming and focus more on ways to improve things. Overall, no, I don't think the panel is completely unnecessary.
Posted by Lara (Member # 132) on :
I wasn't going to post this because I thought it was just stating the obvious, but- what are civilians going to find that the government isn't? The panel is grassroots, right? Not that it's not important based just on that, but really. The people in charge of national security are in their positions for a reason. Just because a professional makes a mistake doesn't mean a horde of laymen fueled by indignation can run in and tell him how to do his job better.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Except for the "Blame the US" part. But that's in every Tresopax post.
...only if you imagine it in my posts. Read it again, and note the difference between "US" and "the U.S."
quote:We, the people, elect our leaders to do our bidding. It is our concerns that dictate the priorities of the government. Thus, if we were not freaking out over terrorism, there is no reason to think the government should have been fixating its eye upon terrorism either. If anyone at all is to blame, it is most definitely US.
[ May 01, 2004, 12:14 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Starting a topic that everyone agrees with really leaves no room for discussion. *agrees*
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
But here's the thing: If we all agree, why don't the politicians in office see the same thing?
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
By "we", I mean Hatrack. The American public is not the same as Hatrack, although it would be nice if that was so. Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Because we, as a culture, demand a scapegoat. Bad stuff doesn't just *HAPPEN*
It has to be someone's fault and THEY MUST PAY.
It's America at its worst.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
Xap!
I 'm in absolute agreement with you. In part.
fallow
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Fallow, that's like saying, "I full confidence you won't fail your task, just don't screw up." Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
and?
I just meant that I'm in full agreement with the perspective on human nature to be reactive to "threats' of any sort. (not gonna change my diet or smoking habits 'til I'm under the lights hearing the word "thoracic")
It's positively jurassic, but seems to be the looming case, even amongst the best-informed.
fallow
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
<makes a note to use "thoracic" and "Jurassic" in a rap one of these days>
[ May 01, 2004, 01:35 AM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
lara,
It's good to see you are back. Hope you had some good fun.
fallow
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
The reason for the panels is that people love to blame other people. Bad things can't just happen. If you get mugged you should not be out at night. If a woman gets raped, it is her clothes. Why? Because if it is not her fault than it could happen to me...or my friend, mother, or sister. Since many times the general public uses this flawed reasoning, it is not surprising that politicians use it as well. Added to the typical flawed reasoning is a bonus for politicians...if they can convince people that their opponent was to blame, they might be helped in the election.
One thing that has been good about the commission is it has shown that as Bush has said in the past, the people that are to be blamed are those that flew the planes into buildings, and those that ordered the attacks...not the Americans, not the president (either Bush or Clinton). The fact of the matter is prior to 9/11 neither Bush nor Clinton could have gotten Americans, much less the world to go onto a major offensive against the Taliban. Hell, Bush has a tough time getting people to agree to go onto an offensive against Iraq, and Saddam has shown himself to be a threat in the past.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)