Was Kerry to Blame for 9/11?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Chemicalsuperfreak
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fault News
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of whether John Kerry bears any responsibility for the events leading up to the 9/11 attacks, particularly in relation to security lapses at Logan International Airport. Participants explore political accountability, media representation, and the actions of various political figures in the context of terrorism warnings and airport security.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that Kerry's failure to ensure the Bush administration acted on security warnings makes him culpable for the attacks.
  • Others contend that the Bush administration was warned multiple times about terrorism but did not take adequate action, suggesting that blame should be directed there instead.
  • There is a claim that deregulation weakened oversight agencies, contributing to security failures at airports.
  • Some participants challenge the relevance of political affiliations, such as the fact that the DOT's inspector general was a Clinton nominee, arguing it does not absolve the Bush administration's inaction.
  • A later reply questions the accuracy of claims about Kerry's actions, stating he did not directly hand information to the Bush administration but rather to a Clinton nominee.
  • Participants express frustration with media coverage, suggesting it prioritizes sensationalism over substantive discussion of issues.
  • One participant highlights a specific incident involving an undercover investigation at Logan Airport, questioning the effectiveness of Kerry's response to security concerns raised by retired FAA agents.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, with no consensus reached on whether Kerry or the Bush administration should be blamed. The discussion remains unresolved with ongoing debate about the implications of political actions and media narratives.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include differing interpretations of Kerry's actions, the impact of deregulation on security, and the reliability of media sources. The discussion reflects a complex interplay of political accountability and the effectiveness of governmental responses to security threats.

Chemicalsuperfreak
Messages
218
Reaction score
2
Yup, here's why. Kerry was informed of security lapses at Logan International Airport. Kerry immediately forwarded the information to the Bush administration, but he should have known that the Bush administration was incompetent and would not prevent an attack. Therefore it was Kerry's fault.
I kid you not, they actually said this. They were discussing this article in the NY Post:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/20808.htm

which is also owned by Rupert Murdoch.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
The pre-election games are starting.. aren't they?
Is it really a grown up way to exercise politics? I have seen the commercials at the Bush/Gore face off a few years ago.. I couldn't believe it..
 
The Repugnicans are grasping at straws again. The sorriest part is that everything they've accused Kerry of, Bush is more guilty of. Bush was warned time and again about terrorism, and instead spent more of his first few months on vacation than any other president.

You know who else we should blame for this? Anybody who supports deregulating businesses, because it is deregulation which weakened oversight agencies to the point that they couldn't simply demand that the airports increase security.
 
Originally posted by Monique
The pre-election games are starting.. aren't they?
Is it really a grown up way to exercise politics? I have seen the commercials at the Bush/Gore face off a few years ago.. I couldn't believe it..
No, it isn't...it is the way the media wants to run it though, in soundbytes, rumor, and innuendo, which is all much better for ratings that serious discussion of issues. You'll get a better discussion of issues from me and phatmonkey yelling at each other than you ever will from the mainstream media.
 
Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
Kerry immediately forwarded the information to the Bush administration, but he should have known that the Bush administration was incompetent and would not prevent an attack. Therefore it was Kerry's fault.
You should get your facts straight. Mr. Mead (DOT's inspector general)was a CLINTON nominee. Give me a break.
 


Originally posted by kat
You should get your facts straight. Mr. Mead (DOT's inspector general)was a CLINTON nominee. Give me a break.
What does that have to do with anything?
 


Originally posted by Zero
What does that have to do with anything?

Jeez, I don't know, Zero! I guess nothing if your only interested in hyperbole, I guess everything if you're interested in keeping your facts straight.


*edit: On second thought, maybe you didn't bother to read the link he offered and actually believe that Kerry handed this vital information to the Bush administration. If that's the case, read the article...He did not, he handed it over to Mr. Mead, a Clinton nominee. There's plenty enough blame to go around for the failures that led to 9-11 without creating more fiction.
 
Last edited:


Originally posted by Zero
What does that have to do with anything?

Don't you know? Everything is the fault of Clinton's penis.
 


Originally posted by kat
Jeez, I don't know, Zero! I guess nothing if your only interested in hyperbole, I guess everything if you're interested in keeping your facts straight.


*edit: On second thought, maybe you didn't bother to read the link he offered and actually believe that Kerry handed this vital information to the Bush administration. If that's the case, read the article...He did not, he handed it over to Mr. Mead, a Clinton nominee. There's plenty enough blame to go around for the failures that led to 9-11 without creating more fiction.
See, I read the article more closely than I read the first post of the thread. Nevertheless, someone being a Clinton nominee still has nothing to do with the main point, especially since Clinton's people were doing so much work that Bush and Co. chose to ignore.
 
  • #10


Originally posted by Zero
See, I read the article more closely than I read the first post of the thread. Nevertheless, someone being a Clinton nominee still has nothing to do with the main point, especially since Clinton's people were doing so much work that Bush and Co. chose to ignore.
LOl, sorry..I forgot you're the propaganda king and pointing out the little minor details such as the entire last half of the originator of this threads post was nothing but an outright lie is a trifle..unless of course it fits in with your agenda, then it suddenly becomes a drastic error. Spare me.
 
  • #11


Originally posted by kat
LOl, sorry..I forgot you're the propaganda king and pointing out the little minor details such as the entire last half of the originator of this threads post was nothing but an outright lie is a trifle..unless of course it fits in with your agenda, then it suddenly becomes a drastic error. Spare me.
Ranting again? Why don't you try focusing on the actual issue at stake. You made your "point", move on.
 
  • #12
Originally posted by Zero
No, it isn't...it is the way the media wants to run it though, in soundbytes, rumor, and innuendo, which is all much better for ratings that serious discussion of issues. You'll get a better discussion of issues from me and phatmonkey yelling at each other than you ever will from the mainstream media.

We finally agree on something!
 
  • #13
Originally posted by phatmonky
We finally agree on something!
Well, at least there is a slight chance that we'll at least bring up an actual issue every now and again. The media, on the other hand, isn't interested in facts or issues. Look at the numerous lies told about Gore, or the over-focus on Bush's 3 decades old military record. The media bias is about scandal, ratings, and money. Reporters seem to be generally lazy, and inclinded to accepting whatever nonsence is sold to them. Republicans are better at manipulating the media, but we can't blame them too much...we can blame the media itself for allowing themselves to be manipulated.

In this specific instance, what did we really expect Kerry to do, besides report the information to the relevant agency? And why would this be worth equal space with the Bush Administrations repeated ignoring of much more specific warnings about terrorism?
 
  • #14
Am I the only one that read the article??

Where did Fox news say this??
station (Fox-25) aired reporter Deborah Sherman's story on an undercover investigation at Logan that Sullivan and another retired agent helped set up. In nine of 10 tries, a crew got knives and other weapons through security checkpoints

Get it through your head! Some local affiliate did an invesitgation on with some retired FAA agents and sent the information to Kerry. The retired FAA agent is unhappy with Kerry's actions, especially now with his rhetoric and condemnation of Bush.

Now let's see the truth about Kerry:

The next day, Sullivan fired off a two-page letter to Kerry highlighting the systemic failures.
Sullivan followed up by having the undercover videotape hand-delivered to Kerry's office.
More than 11 weeks later, Kerry finally replied to his well-informed and anxious constituent. "I have forwarded your tape to the Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General [DOT OIG
Sullivan had made it clear in his letter that going to his old agency was a dead end. He and other agents had complained about security lapses for years and got nowhere
But he never heard from Kerry again.
He offered to fly to Washington at his own expense to give Kerry a document-backed presentation about the "facade of security" at Logan and other major airports.


So what was the result of this prodding?
Yet the warnings apparently did stick in Kerry's mind: In the days after 9/11, Kerry told the Boston Globe that he'd triggered an undercover probe of Logan security by the General Accounting Office in June 2001.
Oh yes! Kerry taking credit for doing something about it! Luckily he took those guys advice and evidence, and made good on it!

But he wrote Sullivan no such thing in his July letter,
uh oh!

And GAO, though it is the investigative arm of Congress, didn't seem to know what the senator was talking about.
uh oh AGAIN!

The agency had tested security at two airports before 9/11, but neither one was Logan. And Kerry confessed he didn't know the outcome of the probe he says he triggered.
uh oh even more! He didn't even know what it was that he supposedly triggered.
 
  • #15
Where's the "truth"? All I see is unsubstantiated claims made by a Bush supporter, and reported as fact by an incompetent right-wing media source.
 
  • #16
More than 11 weeks later, Kerry finally replied to his well-informed and anxious constituent. "I have forwarded your tape to the Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General [DOT OIG]," he said in a brief July 24, 2001, letter, a copy of which I've obtained.

Yet Sullivan had made it clear in his letter that going to his old agency was a dead end. He and other agents had complained about security lapses for years and got nowhere. "The DOT OIG has become an ineffective overseer of the FAA," he told Kerry. Sullivan suggested he show the tape to peers on committees with FAA oversight. He even volunteered to testify before them.

But he never heard from Kerry again.

Sounds like Kerry really dropped the ball here.
 
  • #17
Originally posted by Zero
Where's the "truth"? All I see is unsubstantiated claims made by a Bush supporter, and reported as fact by an incompetent right-wing media source.

Well, I guess you're right. The new york post is the right's equicalent of your www.whatreallyhappened.com [zz)]
 
  • #18
Originally posted by Zero
The media bias is about scandal, ratings, and money. Reporters seem to be generally lazy, and inclinded to accepting whatever nonsence is sold to them.
How about the fact the US is now looking into propaganda supposedly made by Bush by selling video's with 'newsitems', which were actually actors pretending to be reporters? Should that even have a place in a newsbroadcast, or would it be in the power of the president? I guess this would be an entire discussion on its own :P
 
  • #19
Hmmmm...am I the only one questioning why this was published as an opinion piece, instead of straight news? It might have somthing to do with the fact that Paul Sperry hasn't bothered to do any but the most perfunctory research, and is only publishing unsustantiated claims, with no attempt to confirm them.

Seems to me that the evidence points to GAO dropping the ball. Here's an interesting quote from Brian Sullivan, back in September 2001, that repudiates the opinion article which quotes him:

Sullivan says Sen. Kerry responded to his letter and asked the

Department of Transportation's Inspector General look into the matter.

"I think Sen. Kerry did get it to the right people and they were

about to take action."
Here's a link...take it with a grain of salt, I am still hunting down the original article. http://www.freedomtocare.org/page213.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20
Originally posted by phatmonky
Well, I guess you're right. The new york post is the right's equicalent of your www.whatreallyhappened.com [zz)]
I have no idea what you are talking about...but that is general for a right-wing media source to be compared with an obscure left-wing blog.
 
  • #21
Originally posted by Monique
How about the fact the US is now looking into propaganda supposedly made by Bush by selling video's with 'newsitems', which were actually actors pretending to be reporters? Should that even have a place in a newsbroadcast, or would it be in the power of the president? I guess this would be an entire discussion on its own :P
Yeah, it sure would, but it is part of the larger pattern of Bush lies and media manipulation.
 
  • #22
Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
Yup, here's why. Kerry was informed of security lapses at Logan International Airport. Kerry immediately forwarded the information to the Bush administration, but he should have known that the Bush administration was incompetent and would not prevent an attack. Therefore it was Kerry's fault.
I kid you not, they actually said this. They were discussing this article in the NY Post:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/20808.htm

which is also owned by Rupert Murdoch.
Maybe you could quote for me the relevant part, because I don't see where it says anything at all about the information being forwarded to the Bush administration. It says:
"He just did the Pontius Pilate thing and passed the buck" on back through the federal bureaucracy, said Brian Sullivan, a retired FAA special agent from the Boston area who in May 2001 personally warned Kerry that Logan was ripe for a "jihad" suicide operation possibly involving "a coordinated attack."


----ehh, nevermind, I should have kept reading this thread: phat has already covered most of this. No, phat, you're not the only one: I also read the article.

edit: and Zero, you crack me up: at first, you were all for the interpretation that this was another Bush failure, now you're blasting the article as biased. What happened, did you read the article after you posted the first time and only realize then that the thread opener was a massive misrepresentation? Jeez, talk about taking the bait - and showing your true colors: if something says what you want it to, no need to even read it, just assume its truthful and valid. But if it says something you don't want it to, you must assume its biased (at the very least). It boggles my mind how you even take the principles of science into the philosophy forums, but leave them at the door of the politics forum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
Long time no see, Russ...still reading things the way you want, still msirepresenting what I'm saying...
 
  • #24
There may be some misunderstanding. As for my original post, I didn't say the Post said that, I said that Fox News said that was what the Post said. It's no big surprise that Fox would misinform its viewers, given that of all the major television news outlets, it's the Fox News viewers who are most misinformed.
 
  • #25
Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
There may be some misunderstanding. As for my original post, I didn't say the Post said that, I said that Fox News said that was what the Post said. It's no big surprise that Fox would misinform its viewers, given that of all the major television news outlets, it's the Fox News viewers who are most misinformed.

REally? and you did this survey? based on the criteria that if they disagree with you, they are misinformed?
 
  • #26
Originally posted by phatmonky
REally? and you did this survey? based on the criteria that if they disagree with you, they are misinformed?

Me? No. The University of Maryland. But I doubt you heard about it watching Fox News.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27
Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
Me? No. The University of Maryland. But I doubt you heard about it watching Fox News.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf

Hrrrmmm, so Fox viewers being misinformed on Iraq, is them being "the most misinformed"?? I see. So the criteria is solely based on one event (one that is about as divisive as any that has happened since vietnam)??

Then one must look at the agenda on which each network setforth from the beginning.People were obviously more tuned in when we initially went to war than later on.

FOX came from a mostly supportive stance. Therefore, it's hardly surprising that a larger number of FOX viewers continued to lean in the direction of the assertions put forth before the war even began. Things like the missiles found by the dutch got a front page story on even the BBC when they thought they were blister agent. I had to actually SEARCH to find out that they were tested negative.


NPR on the other hand has leaned against the war from the beginning, and thus the viewers also fall in the same direction.

It wouldn't be shocking to find out that if you had asked all these people the same questions before the war, they would have answered predictions roughly the same.
There's plenty of ways to explain the results of this test, but the simplest thing that can be gathered from it is that...outside of the realm of 3 criteria dealing with the Iraq war, this test proves nothing about your assertion that "fox viewers are the most misinformed". It'll take a broader set of data than this to make that point
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28
Let's try to get this slightly back on track, ok?
 
  • #29
Originally posted by Zero
Let's try to get this slightly back on track, ok?

Sorry, I'm fighting off a ***** of a cold, and am easily distracted while I look for ways to entertain myself :o
 
  • #30
Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
There may be some misunderstanding. As for my original post, I didn't say the Post said that, I said that Fox News said that was what the Post said.
?? The article you linked is a POST article commenting on a FOX expose, not the other way around.

If you're saying that you saw a report on Fox TV commenting on the Post article, commenting on the Fox expose, fine: but, uh - the Post article doesn't appear to be challenging the Fox expose.

Either way, the article doesn't say what you say it says. If you wish to substantiate your claim, by all means go ahead. Otherwise we're left with an article that says one thing and your claim which says another.
Long time no see, Russ...still reading things the way you want, still msirepresenting what I'm saying...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
13K
News Clarke's Allegations Against Bush Admin: Confirmation and New Evidence
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
News The Roots of Terrorism and US Foreign Policy
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
News Palin pick an insult to our intelligence
  • · Replies 1K ·
34
Replies
1K
Views
99K
News Patriot Act 2: Summarized by Alex Jones
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K