If Its Broken, Why Haven't They Fixed It?

[TRUTH]

A bank is robbed in an unusual way. Burglars break in through an air conditioning vent and shine a laser at the video cameras to "blind" them. Millions are stolen.

The bank president announces that no one could have foreseen this type of burglary.

The commission investigating the robbery -- stacked with the bank president's business partners and friends -- finds that the break-in was unexpected. The commission makes numerous suggestions on how to thwart similar burglaries by installing motion detectors in the air conditioning vents and bank vault.

Independent researchers, however, discover that there have been many previous break-ins where the burglars crawled in through the air conditioning vents and shined lasers at video cameras.

They also discover that the bank's security system would normally have caught the burglars in the act and alerted the local police in time to stop the burglarly, but the system was undergoing a series of "safety tests" that night -- including some that were similar to what actually occurred -- and so the police assumed that the alarms were part of the test.

There had been safety tests before, but never so many at the same time. The bank president personally scheduled multiple, overlapping tests for the night of the robbery, and then oversaw the operation of the tests and the bank's reaction to those tests.

Years pass, and the bank president does not follow the commission's recommendations. He fails to install any motion detectors.

That's circumstantial evidence that the bank president was in on the heist. Why? Because if the robbery really had not been foreseeable and if he was innocent, he would have a very strong incentive to install motion detectors to prevent further robberies at his bank. His personal reputation, his bank's reputation, and the bank's finances or insurance rates would all depend on it. You can bet that he'd shore up the bank's defenses.

Perks

Let's take it a step further: the bank president's bank account has suddenly gotten alot bigger after the heist. That helps to prove he was in on it, right? But it also shows that one of the reasons the bank president is leaving the bank's defenses in a compromised state now is so that additional heists can occur, and he'll get more loot.

9/11

Similarly, the 9-11 Commission -- stacked with cronies of the Bush administration (like executive director Philip Zelikow, who is very close to administration hawk Condoleeza Rice, and steered the Commission away from the most important lines of inquiry) -- found that the attacks were unexpected, despite very strong evidence that they were not, and despite the fact that the government scheduled numerous, overlapping war games for 9/11 -- some involving a plane flying into a building and others involving hijackings.

And while the 9-11 Commission made numerous recommendations on how to prevent future terrorist attacks -- many of them simple and inexpensive to implement -- the Bush administration has failed to do so.

Just like with the bank president, the current administration's failure to make the recommended and preventative changes -- many of them cheap fixes -- despite billions being spent on supposed "homeland security", is strong evidence that the administration was in on it.

This is especially true because the administration has recieved so many perks from 9/11: justification for wars in Afghanistan (where a huge oil pipeline benefitting American companies was being held up by the Taliban) and Iraq (one of the world's largest oil producers), permanent military bases in the Middle East, and consolidation of power at home.

And by failing to implement the recommendations of the 9-11 Commission, the administration keeps open the possibility that another "terrorist" attack will occur which will whip the now-dissenting American public into line, justify the invasion of Iran, and allow for the suspension of our remaining constitutional rights.

The bottom line is that the administration's, like the bank president's, inaction to fix the alleged holes in security which allowed supposedly unforeseeable crimes to occur shows that they are guilty of the crimes, and hope to benefit from additional crimes in the future.

This is especially true given that false evidence was planted on 9/11.

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/05/if-its-broken-why-havent- they-fixed-it.html

[scubadiver]

To take your analogy that much further, the Bank president decides to enforce a code on all the presumably innocent bank employees that they shall be searched every time they enter and leave the building and that any dissent will be made publicl.

Otherwise known as "The patriot Act".