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.

  • #31
OMG Kerry was told that our airport security sucked and he didn't do anything about it?! The terrorist attack must be his fault! Thousands of deaths are on his shoulders now! Burn him!

Hind sight is 20-20. If you put yourself in his place, you'll see that he did the right thing. He forwarded the issue to the department that handles those issues.

He doesn't have the right to claim that he was a whistle blower because he didn't take any extra effort in making sure that it was taken care of, but that's beside the point. To blame him for weak airport security is like blaming the Post Office for your phone bill being incorrect.

I think the motive behind this was not to make Kerry look dirty, but to draw attention away from the Bush administration. I think it's obvious that nobody would hold this against Kerry, but they might be less inclined to hold the blame to the Bush administration because it was obviously "everybody's fault" that this happened.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Of course, 9-11 is automatically President Bush's fault! It had NOTHING to do with the administration before him, that's for sure...
 
  • #33
This thing with Kerry seems to be a distractionary tactic to keep from asking the tough questions like this one-

"Andrews Air Force Base is a huge military installation just 10 miles from the Pentagon. On 11 September there were two entire squadrons of combat-ready fighter jets at Andrews. Their job was to protect the skies over Washington D.C. They failed to do their job. Despite over one hour's advance warning of a terrorist attack in progress, not a single Andrews fighter tried to protect the city. The FAA, NORAD and the military have cooperative procedures by which fighter jets automatically intercept commercial aircraft under emergency conditions. These procedures were not followed." If the FAA is required by law to notify the US government of a reported hijacking, as they did before the first hit at the WTC, why then, with well over half and hour before the attack on the pentagon, were no preventive military actions taken by Andrews Air Force Base?

http://unansweredquestions.org/topic.php?tid=45
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
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.
He did a hell of a lot more than Bush did about it. If anything in the article is true, it shows that there was a reaction to the possibility of a terrorist strike. But "oh what could Bush have done?" Kill Bin Laden.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1K ·
34
Replies
1K
Views
97K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K