Blame Bush for What Came After 9/11

[hang a left]

Blame Bush for What Came After 9/11
The real issue isn't why the U.S wasn't ready for the attack, but why the Administration used the tragedy to invade Iraq
By Ciro Scotti

Updated: 12:00 a.m. ET April 16, 2004
A funny thing happened on my late-night cab ride uptown a couple of weeks ago in New York City. I had been reading Against All Enemies, the controversial new book by former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, with its riveting account of the Bush Administration's extraordinary performance in the hours after the September 11 attacks. I had watched a somber Clarke on 60 Minutes and saw him grimly but eloquently stand his ground on Meet the Press.

So as the taxi whizzed past the new Time Warner Center, it was somewhat surreal about to spot Clarke standing on the corner with another man, laughing heartily. It's good that Richard Clarke can laugh once in a while because he has taken on the most serious of tasks: Calling to account a Presidency that failed in its vigilance but more important -- used the death of innocents to lead the country into a war it had been longing to wage.

TEAR DOWN THE CRITICS. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, the Clarke superior whom his book buries with faint praise, tried to make a cogent case before the September 11 commission on Apr. 8 that the newly arrived Bush Administration had done a reasonable job of pulling guard duty for the republic. All she really needed to say in her public testimony was: "We were new. We were inexperienced. We didn't have our eye on the ball. We're sorry." But she never did that, and what she did say was largely irrelevant and already forgotten.

As irrelevant and discardable, in fact, are the scurrilous attacks on Clarke by Administration dobermans such as Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist , whose reputation as a classy politician/physician lies shattered on the Capitol floor. On Mar. 26, Frist said he found the Clarke book to be "an appalling act of profiteering, trading on his insider access to highly classified information and capitalizing on the tragedy that befell this nation on September 11, 2001."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4750683/

[LittleApple81]

1. The last two paragraphs say it all:

And this being from BusinessWeek on line is all good.

snip....

"THE REAL THREAT"? Philip Zelikow, now the executive director of the September 11 commission, served on the National Security Council, was on the Bush transition team, and was a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board from 2001 to 2003. According to the Inter Press Service, he said during a war-on-terror forum at the University of Virginia Law School on Sept. 10, 2002: "I'll tell you what the real threat and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel. And this is the threat that dares not speak its name because...the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically because it's not a popular sell."

So to boil all this down, we went to war, sacrificed thousands of human lives, racked up billions in bills, and flouted the rules of international law for three basic reasons: Israel, oil, and the vengeance of a son whose father didn't finish off Saddam and then was targeted for assassination by the Iraqi Horror Show in 1993? When you think that Bill Clinton was impeached and almost tossed out of office for fooling around with a willing intern and then lying about it, his sins seem like very small potatoes. Very small potatoes indeed.

[aquart]

3. Well, of course Israel isn't worth it.

That's your point, right? The one that was really most important for us to know?

Nothing we do in Iraq can solve Israel's problem. However, if the REAL plan is a liebensraum, a decision to kill millions, tens of millions of Muslims in a bid to grab their oil and control its destiny, then a very sick mind might think Israel could be helped by this.

I tend to think not.

But then, you never did say how enraging the populous Arab world would be of benefit to tiny Israel. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

[TheFarseer]

6. I completely agree

I understand that Sadam was paying suicide bombers, but jeez they're going to get suicide bombers whether he does that or not.

BTW does anyone else get sick of this "homocide" bombers crap? It's just not an accurate desciption!

[sandnsea]

7. Who else is paying them?

I kind of thought most, if not all, ME countries paid them. Do you know, off the top of your head, which countries specifically? Thanks.

[fearnobush]

2. Woodward looks to back him up.

But the Media mind control and the GOP smear and steer (people away from the electoral process) has been somewhat effective. I believe it's time for some good old fashioned 'teach in's'.

[DenverDem]

4. The real issue is who planned and facilitated the attack

so that everything that went down after 9/11 could happen.

America is too cowardly to even ask that question.

Who stood down NORAD?

[fishnfla]

5. Not to be hypercritical

but I've read better written and edited articles in my life. Maybe its late but the first sentence of the second paragraph makes no sense. ..."it was somewhat surreal about to spot".... whats that?

Edit: yes its late, I should be talking