Why has the journalistic community
chosen to downplay the latest 9/11 Commission Report? Actually the
report substantiated much of what the 9/11 Commission Report states
repeatedly. There were many warnings that Osama Bin Laden was going to
attack the U.S. on our soil, with strong indications that he would be
using aircraft and would target an American icon, be it landmark
buildings, bridges etc. It is all in the report, which is very
readable. What the report also substantiates is that our president had
been in office for eight months before 9/11, and was briefed on all the
intelligence reports coming in, but chose to ignore them. Ignore them
after being told by Bill Clinton and his cabinet members that Osama Bin
Laden and terrorism would be the highest priority of Bush's presidency.
Read the report, it's all in the report. Now we are hearing about
another piece of the commission's report that states that there were 52
warnings to the FAA before 9/11 that terrorists were going to use
planes to attack the U.S. Why aren't Americans outraged about this?
What this means is that the president and his important cabinet members
knew we were going to be attacked and did nothing. Is that what a
president does to protect the American people? Why has the media
downplayed this report? In addition, why was this report released three
months after the election and appointment of Condoleezza Rice? Who as
National Security Advisor, most assuredly, was given this information.
9/11 changed our lives forever. 9/11 is the direct reason, as stated by
the president, that we invaded Iraq, even though they had nothing to do
with it. The big question is why did this administration ignore all the
warnings. It's the media who need to raise the heat on this matter, Why
haven't they? It seems as if most of the journalists today are either
scared cowards, frauds, or paid for by the administration, which is to
say corporate conglomerate ownership. It's confusing and downright
frightening. [more]