What would you like me to say, SD? That we chose the wrong course of action? Fine, consider it said. We. Chose. The. Wrong. Course. Of. Action. That is a risk accepted by everyone in any position of authority within the government, military, or intelligence community, and it happens a lot more often than you might know. Just look at the war in Iraq, for God's sake.
Do you understand the concept of arrogance at all? Do you understand that, prior to 9/11, we considered ourselves invincible and immune from attack in our own country FROM FOREIGN SOURCES? And that to some extent, we still do? No one is disputing the OKC bombings, but remember, Tim McVeigh was an American; not an Islamic extremist. And even taking into account that there were attempted attacks from outside sources prior to 9/11, we didn't consider them spectacular; more of a nuisance, since so little consequence resulted from them. I would be the first to admit that losing even one person to a foreign or domestic terrorism attack is going too far, but I'm looking at it from the point of view of someone who lived through that day in 2001, not someone from prior to that event who would likely say, as long as the majority are safe, what do I care if a few people die? That's an oversimplification of the stance they likely held, but I trust you take my meaning; basically, no one considered the relatively small attacks prior to 9/11 of much consequence.
Look at it from this perspective. Prior to 9/11, the last major attack on our soil from an overseas entity was Pearl Harbor. We then went on to so thoroughly spank the Germans and the Japanese that in the process we established this image of ourselves in the rest of the world's eyes as the biggest badasses on the planet. After a while, we started to believe that image (adulation, praise, having everyone look to you every time there's a problem in the world, and that sort of thing will do that to a person). We began to think that no one would challenge our position as the dominant country on the planet, and we grew complacent. Arrogance and complacence are a deadly combination when it comes to security, SD. You ask me if certain security measures might not have prevented 9/11, and my answer is, they absolutely might have, HAD WE HAD THE MENTAL MINDSET TO CARRY THEM OUT. You ask me if we sat on intel and did nothing with security measures to prevent 9/11; my answer is, yes, we did, but once again, our mindset at the time made us incapable of recognizing the threat that existed.
I am honestly at a loss as to why this is so difficult for truthers to understand, I really am. You approach this as though the intelligence community should have interpreted everything from the mindset of 9/11 having already happened, despite KNOWING that the majority of the American people, IC included, were so shocked and appalled that something like this had happened that it's pretty clear they couldn't conceive of it happening prior to it happening. Heck, most of the rest of the FREE WORLD reacted that way; they couldn't believe it happened to us, of all people. Explain to me how we were supposed to be prescient when our own leaders admit to being arrogantly sure that terrorism wasn't that big of a threat prior to 9/11, much to our detriment?
As to the specificity of the warnings; I still maintain that they were not as specific as you all seem to think, and I have asked that question of many people within the IC, and they all agree with me. Do they regret that they didn't spot the patterns? Absolutely they do! They live with this EVERY DAY, that they essentially let nearly 3,000 American citizens die through their own arrogance. We were lemmings, SD, merrily running over the cliff despite the sign that said "DANGER AHEAD". But to suggest, as many truthers do (not saying you are as I don't know what theory you espouse) that we DELIBERATELY sat back and either let nearly three thousand of our own citizens die, or actively PLANNED their deaths, well, THAT, to me, is the more reprehensible action, and is completely indefensible.
I'm a bit confused by this whole "assigning blame and consequences" thing you seem to be on about. Since when was there a legal precedent for someone admitting a mistake and then having someone say, "you admitted that you made a mistake, therefore you are responsible for the deaths of these people"? I'm not a lawyer, but maybe someone on here who is can explain that to you better; I'd suggest you ask LashL if there is a legal precedent for charging someone on the basis of a MISTAKE they made (unless it was a mistake where they admitted they deliberately caused whatever the crime was). As far as I know, there is not. People make mistakes EVERY DAY, a lot with serious consequences, that aren't charged with crimes; why must this be different? And aren't the changes being made within the IC PROOF that the mistakes have been acknowledged and we are TRYING to change things so something like 9/11 doesn't happen again? In essence, we've already tried and convicted ourselves, and now we're carrying out our sentence. Everyone in the IC is in the business of public service and ensuring the safety of the American people. Who would you suggest is at fault for 9/11 then? You can't put an entire community of people on trial, so who do we blame? The leaders? The analysts? The policymakers? Who? Tell me who you think we should blame for this, 'cause I gotta tell you, whoever you think they are, they probably already blame themselves and are doing everything in their power to ensure it won't happen again. They've LEARNED from their mistake, in other words, now let them atone in the way they can. Ultimately, the person at fault for 9/11 is not in this country. Yes, in a way, we let it happen, but we didn't put the idea in Osama's head; Khalid Sheik Mohammed did, and then Osama ran with it. We've got KSM at least, so you've got one of the culprits. Why not focus your attention on what you think we should sentence him to, instead of trying to blame the adminstration or the IC for their mistakes.
