Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (128812)	4/9/2004 12:27:40 PM
From: redfish	Respond to of 281500

I believe Clarke's testimony was that, had the admin followed his recommendations, it still would not have prevented 9/11. I think it is patently clear that, based on what was known and knowable, 9/11 could have been prevented ... to say it is not within the realm of possibility is an extreme and, imo, inaccurate position.

To: carranza2 who wrote (128812)	4/10/2004 7:51:09 AM
From: tekboy	Read Replies (7) \| Respond to of 281500

ever hear of the concept of contributory negligence? the folks at the White House and elsewhere in the national security bureaucracy are supposed to do what they can to protect us from our enemies. they knew al Qaeda was an enemy for a long time before 9/11, and although they tried reasonably hard to stop it, they did not ultimately succeed. we could and should have done more; that's obvious in retrospect, and some were saying so beforehand as well. we don't have to be Japanese about this, but a certain degree of adult maturity consists in accepting responsibility for the consequences of one's actions (or inactions). President should have done it, not Clarke. tb@gottarun.com