Leaders of 9/11 Panel Say Attacks Were Probably Preventable
So why weren't they?
Published: April 25, 2010
WASHINGTON, On April 4, 2005 —leaders of independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks agreed
that evidence gathered by their panel showed the attacks could probably have been prevented.
Their remarks drew sharp disagreement from one of President Bush's closest political advisers, who insisted that the
Bush and Clinton administrations had no opportunity to disrupt the Sept. 11 plot. They also offered a preview of the
difficult questions likely to confront Condoleezza Rice when she testifies before the panel at along-awaited public
hearing this week.
In a joint television interview, the commission's chairman, Thomas H. Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey,
and its vice chairman, Lee H. Hamilton, a former Democratic House member from Indiana, indicated that their final report
this summer would find that the Sept. 11 attacks were preventable.
In retrospect, to fully understand 911, you have to understand the politics of the Bay of Pigs.
During the Bay of Pigs, the intelligence community deceived the President into thinking that a rag-tag army of American
patriots and Cuban exiles had the ability to overthrow Castro. These rebels thought that their courage and determination
would lull Kennedy to war over Cuba, but they were wrong. The difference between the way Kennedy and Bush handled
the Bay of Pigs fiasco and 911 respectively, is that Kennedy learned from his mistakes. George Bush was deeply imbedded
in his and he did not possess the intelligence and the courage of a President like John F. Kennedy. In the main, Bush was
the puppet of the parallel, intelligence community that engages schemes like the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and 911 was like an
accident waiting to happen.
Regarding the Bay of Pigs fiasco, historians who have studied Nixon's memoirs have reached the following conclusion:
Thankfully, Richard Nixon's financial backers did not make him President of the United States, in 1960,
because he would have probably invaded Cuba and triggered a nuclear war with the Soviet Union, in the
process. As a matter of fact, that is exactly what Richard Nixon advised Kennedy to do. In his own words,
speaking to Kennedy about Cuba, Richard Nixon said, "I would find a proper legal cover and I would go in.
There are several justifications that could be used, like protecting American citizens living in Cuba and
defending our base at Guatanamo. I believe that the most important thing at this point is that we do
whatever is necessary to get Castro and communism out of Cuba."
Fortunately, John F. Kennedy was the President of the United States, in 1960, and a potential nuclear war over Cuba was averted.
In a similar vein, the confusion that surrounds 911 is merely a product of the very same intragovernmental delusions
and deceits that propelled the Bay of Pigs invasion.
Unfortunately, instead of a confident leader like John F. Kennedy, George Bush was the President during 911 and he was
provided with what Richard Nixon would have call "proper legal cover" to bomb Baghdad back to the stoneage.
John F. Kennedy characteristically rejected group-think decisions, George Bush accepted them, and that ultimately
produced the "rag-tag" 911 fiasco.
Politics mired in deception, doublecross and mixed motivations brought down the World Trade Center and the scheming
and plottig of rogue intelligence operatives never be exposed, for obvious reasons.
We will never be able to fully identify all the grains of sand of this unpecedented fiasco because the truth is violently
covered up. Some of the players are already dead and like the Iran-Conta scandal, we have recognized the beach and it
is impossible to deny the probable nature of this unprecedented fiasco because the official stories are too nonsensical
to satisfy the natural curiosity of any reasonable person. We are in the dark because the "classified" grains of sand are
beyond the reach of mere mortals, and all that we can do is to recognize and respond to the people who routinely turn
the lights off.
For example, if you try posting something credible about 911 on the Internet, you might encounter a disinformation agent
who disrupts the opportunity to learn by manufacturing self-serving truths. If the following message (EXCERPT) regarding
false claims of Russian, 911 involvement, was not posted to derail a plausible conversation about the events surrounding 911,
it is difficult to understand it:
“Soviet ambitions towards the United States were aimed at the extinction of Capitalism and the socialization’ of America…."
On the Internet, fanatics still resort to blaming the Communists for everything, and since these are the very same people
who currently call Obama a Communist because they oppose his politics, it is very difficult to take them seriously.
If you wish to understand the absurdity of blaming somebody like Lee Harvey Oswald for 911, you must watch this video,
and in the final analysis, it will ultimately make you understand 911 better than any mere words can possibly reveal.
This fascinating video has been fact-checked by reliable historians, and if it doesn't make your jaw
drop, it should. To view it on a wider screen, click on this link.
To view a credible, youtube video that clearly exposes the controlled demolition which is responsible for bringing down
the towers on September 11, 2001, click right here.
