Comments: Sept. 11 hearings

I happened to watch today as well...and you hit the nail on the head. We could sit all day and debate "would have, should have". Especially when Clinton had the offering of Bin Laden on a platter. But really would the support have been there to use shock and awe...not a chance. This whole exercise should really boil down to what logical thinkers now know and many knew previously. Inaction equals death. Victory creates peace, and diplomacy keeps the peace.

Posted by Spin Killer at March 23, 2004 02:31 PM

All excellent comments.

Posted by annika at March 23, 2004 03:14 PM

I know it was a rhetorical question…but the answer is ‘YES’. The attack on Pearl Harbor was investigated multiple times…the first investigations took place in the weeks immediately following the attack. They ended with a 25,000 page report issues in 1946.

The first reports lay the blame on the Army and Navy commanders at Pearl Harbor…Admiral Kimmel and General Short, IIRR. Later investigations looked at a wider range of factors and pointed out other contributing problems.

So the blame game is not new…but the political climate is far more vicious now than it was then...and 'Blame America First' was not a popular attitude within either political party back then....

Posted by Maggie at March 23, 2004 06:06 PM

Two things jumped out at me. First was the various headlines throughout the day, first blaming President Bush, then President Clinton, then faulty intelligence, then... and so on and so on.

Second was that nobody got what they really wanted out of this - a political scapegoat. Blame was spread far and wide, and nobody escaped having the finger pointed at them at least a little.

All in all, I'm satisfied. It's a complex question, and the answer, such as it is, shouldn't be reduced to "he did it" or "he didn't do it".

Posted by Ted at March 23, 2004 07:42 PM

A good post.

Personally, as much as I despise Clinton, I don't blame him for not foreseeing 9/11. Neither do I blame Bush. Before 9/11, I never could have conceived hijacking commercial passenger aircraft for suicide missions. Even now it still sounds vaguely tinfoil hat. But it happened, and everything changed because of it.

9/11 probably couldn't have been prevented. But now that we understand the depth and breadth of the enemy's insanity, perhaps the next one can.

Posted by Harvey at March 24, 2004 01:34 AM

Once again, the blogosphere has considerably more wisdom than the commission and at least 3 times that of the media!

Spinkiller, Ted and Harvey: good points about what looking at what "logical thinkers" knew and now know and how our present readiness is more important.

Thanks Annika! Too bad there isn't some kind of common sense litmus test we can give our lawmakers.

Maggie, another history buff! Hurrah! I know there were hearings, but what I wanted was to side-step were the cover-up theories that have emerged in the past 30 years: FDR knew / he thought they would hit the Phillipines / there were three equally potential targets and so on which were based on little actual evidence save that of 20/20 hindsight.

Funny how the media seems to think the commission has already reached their findings based on the questions that were asked. They are rapidly raising their own Moron Factor.

Posted by Debbye at March 24, 2004 07:48 AM

Great post. Agreed 100%.

I think these investigations MUST be made and we can learn a lot of valuable lessons from what they uncover, but the finger pointing is, um, pointless.

There is clearly a search for a scapegoat. Is the media hyping it? I'm not quite sure what's going on, but it isn't constructive.

Posted by murdoc at March 24, 2004 01:05 PM