9/11 Report: No Evidence of Missed Warnings | LA Times

[Ediacara]

9/11 Report: No Evidence of Missed Warnings

By Richard B. Schmitt and Josh Meyer, Times Staff Writers


WASHINGTON — A long-awaited congressional report looking into the events leading up to the terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, broadly criticizes the U.S. intelligence community for failing to anticipate the possibility of such an attack but finds no specific evidence that officials ignored or missed warning signs that would have enabled them to foil the plot that killed about 3,000 people, congressional and law-enforcement sources said Tuesday.

The 900-page report is to be released Thursday following months of haggling between congressional investigators and intelligence authorities over what portions of the hefty document should be declassified or remain top secret. A preliminary version detailing a summary of the concerns was published last winter.

The report is the product of months of hearings and testimony last year before a joint intelligence panel, which unearthed evidence that the FBI and CIA mishandled clues and warnings in the years and months preceding the attacks. The hearings gave impetus to the creation of a bipartisan federal commission being led by former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean that is separately investigating the attacks. The commission is due to complete its work next year.

More at the Los Angeles Times

Mods, sorry if this is a dupe, I did a search and didn't see any items saying it actually has been released, just speculation on what might be in it.

[alfredo]

1. It is the intelligence community's fault, but we don't know why.

Looks like the buck is going to keep moving.

[Gloria]

2. No missed warnings...but who was pushing for them to be ignored

And, the attack WAS anticipated by Hart-Rudman and Gore...

This is real cow puckey...

[Ediacara]

3. kick

:kick:

[study_war_no_more]

4. Is this the explosive report Grahm was talking about

Is this the same committee??

[Stephanie]

6. Same committee, yes

We know at least 28 pages were censored by the WH, supposedly regarding the Saudi connection.

[Stephanie]

5. Remember the NORC report

Don't go by the headline alone. Remember when the NORC finally came out, all the headlines were "Gore Loses Anyway." But it wasn't true. If you read the articles, toward the end they would note that if you counted the votes under any of the scenarios where all of the votes actually got COUNTED, Gore Won.

It's impossible that there was no evidence of missed warnings.

[Wonder]

7. lie after lie after lie after lie

after a while they convince themselves it's true. AND if for some miraculous reason anyone in this government was intent on openning the can of worms this most certainly is, and dare to reveal the intricacies of all the various tie ins here or discredit the various suspicious conclusively; there would be an identity crisis in this country the likes of which we have yet to see.

Have they yet even come close to admitting a standdown? If they have I missed it. Or is that still being relegated to conspiracy theory?

I mean how is it they have gotten away with not explaining in specifics why the fumble in the sky on 9/11. Between the FAA being slow on the draw and NORAD being slow on the take why the hell has no one actually had them explain that appalling demonstration while our illustrious leader read was left to read the goat story...

[realFedUp]

15. Don't go by the headline is right....

I've found with the LA Times that the truth is buried
on page 18 midway through all the other stuff...the
headline editor is conservative IMO. A third of this report
was blacked out to protect the Saudis and Bushes. Many
of us know that there was a lot of intelligence from
other countries as well as here. The mere fact that the
Towers had been bombed once before should tell you something
and that planes had been used as weapons. Why did Jeb Bush
declare Florida a militia state days before? Who made money
betting on the airlines that day? Why were some warned not
to fly that day? How did the bin Laden family get flown out
that very day when no one else was allowed to fly?

There are still a lot of questions and I'm afraid it will
take investigative journalism to get to the truth.

[cthrumatrix]

8. the search for truth was NEVER the point....

If it were...the committee would have been funded with more than $15M and started on 9/12/01.

This is pure "cover-up".

[tlb]

9. Sure doesn't sound like what Graham was suggesting.

Has be just been blowing smoke all this time ?

[stilpist]

10. So *that's* why the WH has been trying so hard ...

... to suppress the investigation! They didn't want anyone to know that there weren't any missed warnings! Yeah, that's the ticket.

- stil

[0007]

11. Where does one indeed start to counter

this statement?

It will take until next year to sort out all the facts? I'm more than sure the wool is being pulled over John Q Public for the sake of a few rich crock chuckers.

[tomp]

12. "The commission is due to complete its work next year."

huh? issuing the report before the work is done? the world is insane.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

13. Wait a minute! This article is obvious propaganda!

I refuse to sign up just to read the whole article, so I will analyse only what you posted. But even in this small snippet, there is a glaring contradiction that PROVES that this article (and probably the report) is just pro-Bush propaganda.

Consider this sentence:

"finds no specific evidence that officials ignored or missed warning signs that would have enabled them to foil the plot"

Beside this sentece:

"which unearthed evidence that the FBI and CIA mishandled clues and warnings in the years and months preceding the attacks"

How can BOTH of these sentences be true? Either they did not "miss or ignore warning signs", or they did not "mishandle clues and warnings", it can't be both.

If they did indeed mishandle clues or warnings, then there by definition MUST have been evidence that they missed or ignored warning signs.

But, this is the same kind of thing as the "16 words" argument. They have carefully worded this so that they can argue that BOTH are true, even though contradictory, because they added the phrase "that would have enabled them to foil the plot".

In other words they are saying "We missed or ignored some clues and warning signs, but we assure you that those warning signs or clues would not have enabled us to foil the plot".

Yeah right!

[Q]

14. A blatant coverup...

- For hell sakes...will this shit ever end? Bush* was given SPECIFIC warnings about hijackings and attacks on American soil.

- These guys make Nixon look like a boy scout.