Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bush admin. and 9/11 investigation...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bush admin. and 9/11 investigation...

    Why Is Bush And His National Security Team Acting So Guilty About 9/11?
    By Joe Rothstein
    Editor, USPoliticstoday.com

    Early in 2002, national security advisor Condoleezza Rice said "no one could have predicted that they would try to use a hijacked airplane as a missile…” to bring down the World Trade Towers.

    Early in 2004 she is fighting hard not to have to repeat that claim under oath.

    Because it was a lie.

    In the immediate aftermath of the attack on New York and Washington most Americans were ready to believe that Osama Bin Laden hit us with a sucker punch that no one could have seen coming. The evidence is now overwhelming that the punch was telegraphed in advance and that gross incompetence let that punch land and do its terrible damage.

    Just before Christmas, and under-reported by the press, was this startling statement by Thomas Kean, chairman of the independent commission investigating 9/11:

    "This was not something that had to happen."

    Mr. Kean is a Republican. He’s the former governor of New Jersey and now a university president. He was appointed commission chairman by President Bush. He’s hardly one to make wild and outrageous statements. His view that 9/11 could have been prevented clearly comes from information Mr. Kean has learned from looking at official classified documents.

    And now Mr. Kean and other members of the investigating commission want Ms Rice and other responsible government officials to testify in public and under oath about what they knew about terrorist activity in the months prior to 9/11--and what they did with that information. The commission wants to know why those charged with U.S. security failed to keep us secure.

    Ms Rice doesn’t want to go there. Neither for that matter does President Bush. They are resisting the request to testify. And they have made clear they don't want to do it under oath or in public.

    The Bush White House fought mightily against creating the Kean commission in the first place. When public pressure forced Congress to go ahead despite their objections, the White House did everything possible to throw nails in the road. They insisted on a two-year time-table. Then they dragged their feet for months in appointing commission members. They even tried to slip pet lap dog Henry Kissinger in as chairman. When that failed, they put the commission on a starvation budget. Then they fought attempts by the commission to see critical documents. Now they don’t want to testify in public or under oath.

    Do you get the impression the administration has something to hide?

    Here’s the most likely reason the administration is acting guilty: It IS guilty.

    When Chairman Kean says 9/11 could have been prevented, he’s really indicting the White House and top administration officials for failing in the worst way possible...they didn't protect the American homeland. That’s not a message Karl Rove wants to see in headlines just before this year’s election.

    Look at it this way: Former national security advisor Sandy Berger was deeply concerned about Al Queda, particularly after the USS Cole was bombed. It’s a matter of record that Berger was onto the acceleration of danger and that he tried to transfer that sense of urgency to the new Bush national security team.

    But the Bush team was a bunch of know-it-alls. They had other priorities and an inherent disdain for President Clinton and everything he did and stood for. So they apparently discounted the Al Queda alarms and focused most of their time and attention on re-shaping defense and foreign policy to their views and doctrines. Responsibility for dealing with Al Queda was consigned below their radar.

    At the working level, a lot of people in the FBI and the CIA and other agencies who were paying attention to the terrorist threat were screaming for attention. Memos were circulating that in retrospect were right on the money in predicting what would happen. Vacations of key security people were cancelled because many U.S. experts on terrorism knew that we were in immediate danger. Airlines were warned multiple times about potential hijackings.

    This sense of urgency apparently didn’t penetrate the highest reaches of the Bush administration. It appears that Sandy Berger’s warnings were not heeded. It appears that no additional resources were thrown into fighting the growing terrorist threat. Systems that might have effectively connected all of the dots between intelligence agencies, immigration, airport security and other responsible agencies never materialized.

    That’s the only logical explanation for why the White House is behaving like a suspect with something to hide in the 9-11 investigation. They are acting guilty because they are guilty.

    Chairman Kean clearly believes that this administration could have prevented 9/11 and failed. It remains to be seen whether Ms Rice and others who shared—and still share---national security responsibility, will show up in public and under oath to prove their innocence.

    The commission is planning public hearings later in January, with or without Ms Rice.

    Joe Rothstein, editor of USPoliticstoday.com, is a former daily newspaper editor and long-time national political strategist based in Washington, D.C.
    The Dude abides.

  • #2
    If preventing terrorist attacks on the US were Bush's top priority, this type of investigation would alreday be completed by now.

    The fact that Bush plays political games instead of investigating the attacks shows what's really important to him.
    2005 Mandatory Loyalty Oath: I love America, our troops, baseball, Moms, and certain pies. I want no harm to come to any of those institutions, nor do I take any glee in their demise.

    Comment


    • #3
      I love reading the Talking Points everyday.

      Its fun to see it here first, then watch it in the evening.
      When you say to your neighbor, "We're having a loud party on Saturday night if that's alright with you," what you really mean is, "We're having a loud party on Saturday night."

      Comment


      • #4
        Wistson - we could have McAullife fax them to you directly if you'd prefer it.
        2005 Mandatory Loyalty Oath: I love America, our troops, baseball, Moms, and certain pies. I want no harm to come to any of those institutions, nor do I take any glee in their demise.

        Comment


        • #5
          I would.

          I do enjoy it, though. I like being "on top of things."
          When you say to your neighbor, "We're having a loud party on Saturday night if that's alright with you," what you really mean is, "We're having a loud party on Saturday night."

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by WinstonSmith@Mar 3 2004, 02:35 PM
            I do enjoy it, though. I like being "on top of things."
            I've heard that about you.


            kimpossible.
            Official Sponsor of Jim Edmonds & John Smoltz

            Comment


            • #7
              Here’s the most likely reason the administration is acting guilty: It IS guilty.
              Probably.

              I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with Democrats making tremendous political hay of it in the months before the election, whatever the testimony or the actual truth is.

              Lemme see....trying to remember how eager Slick Willie was to get to the bottom of the Monica mess....

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by ReggieCleveland@Mar 3 2004, 03:02 PM
                Lemme see....trying to remember how eager Slick Willie was to get to the bottom of the Monica mess....
                Clinton seemed very eager to get the bottom of Monica's...

                Oh - I misread your sentance.

                Never mind.
                2005 Mandatory Loyalty Oath: I love America, our troops, baseball, Moms, and certain pies. I want no harm to come to any of those institutions, nor do I take any glee in their demise.

                Comment


                • #9
                  It should be easy enough for the White House to make this a non-issue...if they wanted to.

                  And the comparison of personal behavior and national security is a hoot. Not surprising, though...

                  Moe
                  The Dude abides.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Moe:

                    just read the "article" you posted.

                    I don't seem to recall anyone in the administration suggesting that there was not an intellegence failure.
                    "You can't handle my opinions." Moedrabowsky

                    Jeffro is a hell of a good man.

                    "A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel." - Robert Frost

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by FAR52@Mar 3 2004, 03:37 PM
                      Moe:

                      just read the "article" you posted.

                      I don't seem to recall anyone in the administration suggesting that there was not an intellegence failure.
                      This is the heart of the story...very well documented that the administration has been much less than forthcoming...

                      Ms Rice doesn’t want to go there. Neither for that matter does President Bush. They are resisting the request to testify. And they have made clear they don't want to do it under oath or in public.

                      The Bush White House fought mightily against creating the Kean commission in the first place. When public pressure forced Congress to go ahead despite their objections, the White House did everything possible to throw nails in the road. They insisted on a two-year time-table. Then they dragged their feet for months in appointing commission members. They even tried to slip pet lap dog Henry Kissinger in as chairman. When that failed, they put the commission on a starvation budget. Then they fought attempts by the commission to see critical documents. Now they don’t want to testify in public or under oath.
                      The Dude abides.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        It should be easy enough for the White House to make this a non-issue...if they wanted to.
                        It obviously is an issue. And I'm sure if the Democrats would promise not to use it unfairly against the administration, Bush would promise to disclose everything by noon tomorrow.

                        And the comparison of personal behavior and national security is a hoot. Not surprising, though...
                        You miss the point. The point is not giving your enemies ammunition if you don't have to.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          This is the heart of the story...very well documented that the administration has been much less than forthcoming...
                          Why is this so shocking? Obviously, somebody somewhere fucked up. And no matter what the truth is, or whoever is responsible for whatever, the Democrats are going to run with this like nobody's business all election year long.

                          Pardon the GOP for not being idiots and helping them do it.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ReggieCleveland@Mar 3 2004, 03:39 PM
                            It should be easy enough for the White House to make this a non-issue...if they wanted to.
                            It obviously is an issue. And I'm sure if the Democrats would promise not to use it unfairly against the administration, Bush would promise to disclose everything by noon tomorrow.

                            And the comparison of personal behavior and national security is a hoot. Not surprising, though...
                            You miss the point. The point is not giving your enemies ammunition if you don't have to.
                            How about the families of those who perished on 9/11? Do their rights come after the GOP's dominant strategy?

                            MOe
                            The Dude abides.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              How about the families of those who perished on 9/11? Do their rights come after the GOP's dominant strategy?
                              Afraid so.

                              Now, tell me with a straight face (or straight typing fingers) that if the parties were reversed here that the Democrats wouldn't be doing exactly the same thing.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X