In an attempt to defend President Bush...

Blog For Free! Archives Home 2007 April 2005 February 2005 January 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2003 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September My Links My essay: The Immorality of Marriage The Onion SelectSmart Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas! Tom Robbins Quotes Funny Name Analysis Bushisms Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell Life, Liberty, Logic Wasting My Time RedTigress's Blog Jimmytherighteous's Blog Octo6er's Blog Nivek's Blog Magicjoejoe's Blog Littlemrmahatma's Blog Kurtmaddox's Blog Winstonsmith's Blog Drforbush's Blog Juniperflux's Blog Iron Blog Religion! tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog Bookmark this site!

In an attempt to defend President Bush... 04.16.04 (5:12 pm)   [edit] As much as it pains me to do this, I actually feel the need to defend Bush. But before doing so, let me make it clear that I do not like Bush. In fact, I can't think of a single thing he has done as president that I so much as approve of (that's not to say I disapprove of everything, just that in the two seconds I took to try and think of something, I couldn't). :wink: But, I also think that the 9/11 commission has become a bit of a joke, lost a great deal of credibility, and will likely determine nothing of substance. While it is important for our future to understand what, if anything, those in charge did wrong in terms of protecting the nation's security, it is also unreasonable and counterproductive to turn this into a blame game. To my knowledge, the following things can be said of the mistakes made that [b]may[/b] have affected the success of the 9/11 hijackings: (1) The CIA had intel detailing, though lacking in substance, bin Laden's potential threat and al Qaeda's intentions, and the warnings of the CIA were not acted upon. (2) More importantly, [b]the intelligence was lacking in substance.[/b] (3) The Clinton Administration did not effectively deal with the threat of al Qaeda, despite years of intelligence gathering and attacks made. (4) Clinton cannot be entirely blamed for this lack of [i]effective[/i] action. By effective action, I mean that al Qaeda was not destroyed. There is no evidence suggesting that it would have been within the realm of possibility, or even conceivability, for Clinton to do such. (5) The greatest mistake I would fault Clinton with would be that the World Trade Center was left mostly defenseless as a target after Ramsi Yousef's '93 bombing. Granted, it wasn't known that planes would be flown into the buildings, but I'd like to think that something could have been done to protect the buildings, regardless of specific knowledge of bin Laden's intentions. (6) The Bush Administration did not make al Qaeda and terrorism its top priority. (7) The Bush Adminsitration was also just commencing, and not under ideal circumstances, but without a clear mandate and with a great deal of controversy. Just as Clinton's scandals shifted the focus of his presidency, so did the controversy over the 2000 election cloud Bush's beginning. (8.) Both administrations, by the simple fact that 9/11 happened, failed to protect the nation. No one is blameless and no one is entirely to be blamed, other than bin Laden/al Qaeda. None of this is all that important, really. But I said I was going to defend Bush, so here goes. By making the 9/11 hearings not only public but forced on the public, and by commissioners being interviewed daily on prime time news shows, it seems as though the commission shouldn't be taken seriously. It seems that it is becoming purely political and that is simply demeaning to the nature of the investigation. I find it immensely difficult to believe that anyone would have allowed the attacks to happen had they known enough to prevent them. Bush may not have taken enough action, but that does not mean he is to blame, and the same can be said for Clinton. I would also add that had I had access to any of those documents, such as the August 6 PDB, I would not only feel immensely guilty, but also partially responsible. While I don't think it is reasonable to blame anyone in particular, I can't see how someone like Condi Rice can simply dismiss the relevance of the PDB and not take a bit of responsibility- at least by acknowledging that the threat was known, though not in enough detail to prevent the attacks. Chris Matthews explained it well when he said that to connect the dots a person must have the dots to connect, but also must have an image in mind or know what they are looking for in order to connect the dots to form anything relevant. Given the information recently being released that points to knowledge of the threats of al Qaeda and bin Laden, it is easy to say that we should have been able to prevent it. But it's only easy now because we are being given the information within a certain context and we know what we're looking for. All these blame games (9/11 is Bush's fault or Clinton's or the CIA's, etc.) are just attempts to overly simplify the situation and are counterproductive.   posted by: DrForbush (reply) post date: 04.16.04 (3:34 pm) Fine, the Bush administration had no idea about what might happen on 9/11. But, it doesn't explain why Bush and Cheney were such wimps on 9/11. They didn't scramble jets after the first plane hit the World Trade Center. They went off to hide someplace and governor Pataki and Mayor Giuliani were left to run things in NY. posted by: RedTigress (reply) post date: 04.16.04 (4:40 pm) I couldn't agree with you more, Dragonbait22. Great entry. posted by: DrForbush (reply) post date: 04.17.04 (11:34 am) Reply to: noguru We now have quite a bit of evidence, and more is coming out every day. It doesn't look very good for Mr. Bush. posted by: juniperflux (reply) post date: 04.18.04 (10:21 am) I'm in agreement with our author on this one. The investigation regarding Bush's actions prior to 9/11 seems to have run its course.... and attempts to point the finger at any one source as holding the blame for that day in our history are not only counterproductive, but also emotionally driven and likely inaccurate. However, in response to noguru, if you're interested in comparing apples and oranges by opening the door for criticisms of Bush's actions AFTER 9/11, you'd better be prepared for a flood... as DrForbush suggested, the wealth of information regarding his response to 9/11 is not only growing, but growing increasinly less flattering. posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 04.19.04 (10:56 am) I don't find the argument that nobody could have foreseen planes crashing into the WTC towers very credible. We knew they were attacked by terrorists, and we should have reasonably known that the terrorists would not simply give up. An airplane attack was a likely contingency and it was one that people should have thought of. I thought of it, and I'm certain that many in the government thought of it too. Airline security was a joke. There was no reason that we had to allow people on board planes with knives or post signs at many airports saying that you can carry one and say how big they can be. There's no reason that we should still be letting people on board with matches and lighters either. This business of confiscating everything is not the answer. Prohibited items should be returned to be checked in, or should be placed in pouches to be returned to the owners at the other end. A small administrative fee can be added for each envelope. Then people will not feel that we have gone overboard when items are restricted. But when passengers get their stuff back, whether it be checked luggage or not, security should not end until they are out of the airport. As it stands, most airports will let you get your bags back and not check the luggage tags when you leave. That means that you could easily go in through the exit with bombs similar to what was used in Spain and leave them unattended all over a baggage claim area. That will kill far more people than the Spain bombings if the airport is busy. While people get paranoid at the check-in area, nobody seems to care at the carousel area. Furthermore, terrorists could easily try placing bags back on the carousel with luggage tags to see what percentage get rerouted without being searched, and then can probably get bombs on planes without a problem once they figure out what works. I seriously doubt that somebody in our government hasn't thought of all of this too. But they won't do anything about it because the airlines don't want to spend the money and they are more concerned with the economic effect of hurting the airlines than the possible lost lives from a terrorist attack. posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 04.21.04 (9:23 pm) Reply to: DrForbush Nobody knew what was going on, and putting the President in danger of assassination would not have made our country safer. We've had too many times when political leaders fly to some disaster, make a speech, and then leave for any of us to believe that it's anything more than politics, yet we still expect it. I don't know what Bush was doing right after the first plane hit, but I'm sure he was working on the issue. It still doesn't explain why he was finishing off a new record for presidential vacation before that, but I can't blame him for his actions on that day in particular. posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 04.21.04 (9:24 pm) Reply to: noguru Actually, that was a pretty mainstream commentary at the time of the event. I don't think it was justifed then or now. Your Name: Your Comment:

"Tragically, a nation that was created by intellectuals and visionaries has now been completely taken over by venal corporate gangsters, delusional Christian fruitcakes and hopelessly shallow Texas shit-kickers." -Tom Robbins