Two Words: "Bush Knew." Which Candidates Will Speak The Truth?

[HFishbine]

Who's got the guts to speak up?

Two Loud Words
By William Rivers Pitt

<snip>

"The public has a right to know what happened on August 6," continued Blumenthal, "what Bush did, what Condi Rice did, what all the rest of them did, and what Richard Clarke's memos and statements were. Then the public will be able to judge exactly what this presidency has done."

George W. Bush is going to run in 2004 on the idea that his administration is the only one capable of protecting us from another attack like the ones which took place on September 11. Yet the record to date is clear. Not only did they fail in spectacular fashion to deal with those first threats, not only has their reaction caused us to be less safe, not only have they failed to sufficiently bolster our defenses, but they used the aftermath of the attacks to ram through policies they couldn't have dreamed of achieving on September 10. It is one of the most remarkable turnabouts in American political history: Never before has an administration used so grisly a personal failure to such excellent effect.

Never mind the final insult: They received all these warnings and went on vacation for a month down in Texas. The August 6 briefing might as well have happened in a vacuum. September 11 could have and should have been prevented. Why? Because Bush knew.

This administration must not be allowed to ride their criminal negligence into a second term. Someone needs to say those two words. Loudly. After all, Bush has proven with Social Security, and with September 11, that third rails can be danced across. All it takes is a little boldness.

http://truthout.org/docs_04/010504A.shtml

[Democrats unite]

1. I think is is safe to say they all will!

eom

[leyton]

2. A candidate will speak up when

there is clear proof that Bush received definite warnings.

(EDIT: DISCLAIMER: I don't know how specific these warnings were, since I wasn't in the Oval Office on August 6th. So if George Tenet came in and said, "Watch out, on September 11 terrorists will hijack flight numbers ###..." then of course you can ignore what I say below.)

We can all say that Caesar should have listened when he received the prophecy: "Beware the Ides of March." But he disregarded the prophecy because it had little appearance of credibility at the time...

The cancelling of plane flights due to terrorist threats is fairly new - in August 2001, I think only the most serious and the clearest warning with plenty of specifics would have triggered the cancellation of a flight. Who's to say that Clinton didn't receive briefings like these all the time, or that Bush hadn't already been receiving briefings like these for the first few months of his presidency? Now, of course, we take them much more seriously, but that's because things like this have happened.

So what I'm saying is a candidate will speak up when there's clear proof that Bush should have acted decisively in a time when things like cancelling flights, issuing general security alerts to the public, etc. were considered extreme measures.

[rfranklin]

3. The bottom line is Bush screwed up, that's why...

they can't release the records. That's why they have been stonewalling on the 9/11 commission. That's why they withheld pages and pages of the Congressional investigation. They fucking screwed up! And they should be in prison for it! There is no debate!

It doesn't matter whether they actually knew the details or MIHOP of anything else, they fucked up!

[judy]

5. If you are right, Leyton, then...

Why did they all lie on September 11th ?

Do you honestly believe that Bush thought it was an accident? A terrible pilot?

Do you really believe that Condoleezza would never have imagined in a million years that terrorists could fly airplanes into buildings? Especially when such a drill had taken place already at the Pentagon, and the French had stopped such an attack some years earlier?

According to what is already publicly known about the August 6th briefing, they had enough info in there to understand that the first plane was an attack and to immediately give orders to evacuate all possible targets (2nd tower, Pentagon, etc.).

And, finally, what is to me the strongest proof: Why, and in the name of what are they stonewalling the investigating commission, and why is it so underfunded ?

Whaddya think, Leyton ?

[leyton]

8. Let me back up a sec.

I'm not saying that the Bush administration is completely devoid of blame for this. But to say that they are culpable or that they were truly negligent is to me an overstatement.

"Never before has an administration used so grisly a personal failure to such excellent effect." (From original post)

I don't think it was a personal failure. Of course Condi Rice would have been aware that terrorists could fly airplanes into buildings. But one of your points are not valid:

"According to what is already publicly known about the August 6th briefing, they had enough info in there to understand that the first plane was an attack and to immediately give orders to evacuate all possible targets (2nd tower, Pentagon, etc.)."

I'm going to take your word for it regarding the contents of the August 6th briefing. But there were only eighteen minutes for an evacuation to be ordered; it took the Port Authority twice that long to evacuate tunnels in Manhattan. Imagine all that must happen: first, the accident has to be identified as a plane crash. That is, officials must either find someone with a videotape and get them to replay it or they must ask people on the street. Then the information has to be relayed to the federal government and it has to make its way through the bureaucracy - not necessarily through the entire FBI or anything, of course - but the White House situation room is not a phone call away. Then, someone has to consult with advisors and make a decision. And then of course the decision has to be relayed. All of that in eighteen minutes? I doubt it. Maybe the Pentagon could have been evacuated, had they known that it was a target (and it technically wasn't, seeing as that plane had most likely aimed for the White House and changed course at the last minute). I'm not an expert on the command structure of the military / national security agencies, but I don't think that they moved quite that fast at the time.

Now, that's not to completely exonerate the Bush administration. The chain of command / decision making structure was obviously not as fine-tuned as it could have been, especially anticipating terrorist attacks. (Which is probably why they're stonewalling the investigation.) But we can't assign Bush the only blame for not averting 9/11.

[MasonJar]

4. I totally agree.

What possible excuse is good enough to warrant the loss of one life, let alone 3000 plus 500 soldiers and 10's of 1000s of Iraqi citizens? The last excuse I heard was that they did not want to hurt the economy of the airlines. Knowing this cabal that at least makes sense. Why did they not warn the airlines so they would not have followed the traditional policy of cooperation with the hi-jackers?

[loftycity]

6. He knew plenty

Just check out Gore Vidals book 'Dreaming War.'

[HFishbine]

7. More?

Welcome to DU Lofty. Can you give us your take on the book? (I have a birthday present to buy soon.)

[newyawker99]

10. Hi loftycity!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[the populist]

9. One part here is incorrect...

"Never before has an administration used so grisly a personal failure to such excellent effect."

Hitler did (Reichstag fire 1933).

[newyawker99]

11. Hi the populist!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Bombtrack]

12. extrordinary charges require extrordinary proof, period

otherwise it's just unfounded paranioa