|
Was 9/11 Preventable? Media Can't Make Up Its Mind
A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY
So what's it gonna be guys?
Two papers, two conclusions on the 911 report. The Washington Post says the attacks "couldn't have been prevented," while The New York Times says "The Sept. 11 attacks were preventable."
The Washington Post's summary under the web headline reads:
"Attacks couldn't have been prevented despite agencies' lapses, report finds." The first two paragraphs of the article state the same conclusion. [LINK]
The New York Times' summary and first paragraph states:
"The Sept. 11 attacks were preventable, but the plot went undetected because of lapses in communication between the two agencies, which failed to share key intelligence." [LINK]
As you read these articles, remember that there are two undisputed facts in all of the spin:
1. The CIA and the FBI did not prevent the September 11 attacks because of communication "lapses."
2. Condoleeza Rice (appointed by Bush) is in charge of overseeing intelligence coordination on behalf of the White House and conveying the information to Bush.
At the risk of rolling in cliches, I just have to say: when one connects the dots, the buck has to stop somewhere.
Thanks as usual for your wonderful site.
A Friendly Reader
A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY
Articles in the BuzzFlash Contributor section are posted as-is. Given the timeliness of some Contributor articles, BuzzFlash cannot verify or guarantee the accuracy of every word. We strive to correct inaccuracies when they are brought to our attention.
