It's a good thing because (1) it gets the idea out there that Bush & Co. are only too eager to use 9/11 to run on; (2) it opens the door for the Democratic candidate to raise the 9/11 issue and the myriad ways that Bush & Co. failed us before that day, on that day, and after that day, to wit:
- Before 9/11:
- intelligence warnings, from many international agencies as well as our own, about an impending attack
- vacationing for the month of August in Crawford -- not to mention his % of vacation time to date
- Ashcroft stopped using commercial flights
- knowledge of potential of airplanes to be used as weapons (Genoa, anyone?)
- putting the fight against Al Qaeda on the back burner -- and pretending not to have heard of Al Qaeda later (oh, if only someone could get that video clip of him pronouncing it as though he had never heard their name before; because now we know without a doubt that he had)
- on his watch, the FBI officer in DC who actively blocked investigation into Mossaoui (sp?) was PROMOTED, while the agents in Minnesota joked ruefully that A.Q. had a "mole in Washington"
- on his watch, the Phoenix memo was ignored
- and lest we forget, he was negotiating with the Taliban before this horrendous event -- why? and did his threat of a "carpet of bombs" blow up in his face -- and in all of our faces?
- On 9/11:
- the biggest security failure since Pearl Harbor
- he can't try and palm it off on "the previous administration" -- how many months do you have to be in office (8 mos. in this case) before you're actually responsible for what happens?
- continued into Booker Elementary even though notified of first plane hitting the WTC
- did he know that other planes had been hijacked?
- if so, why did he continue with the photo op?
- if not, why not? he's the CIC -- if he was not in charge, who was? if someone else was in charge -- or if no one else was in charge -- wasn't that a breakdown in the chain of command? and has anyone been held accountable for that breakdown?
- continued the classroom session for 20 minutes (we need to make sure we get this time right and can document it) after being informed of the second plane hitting the WTC
- again the question -- why? who was in charge during that time? and if it wasn't our CIC, wasn't that a breakdown in the chain of command?
- continued with the photo op with the children, then stated he would have "something to say later" about the attacks
- disappeared on AF1 for the entire day
- we all remember Peter Jennings' pointed question that afternoon, "where is the President?"
- later, Bush was quoted stating that he was "trying to stay out of harm's way" -- we need to find a clip, and use it...
- compare the response of fighter planes to Stewart Payne's runaway Lear Jet, with the non-response of fighter planes when 4 US commercial flights were HIJACKED and -- certainly after the first one hit the WTC -- KNOWN to be used as weapons of attack
- After 9/11:
- let the money trail re: "put" options on AAL and UAL grow cold
- resisted a Dept of Homeland Security -- then took credit for creating it grudgingly (and used it to remove union protections from a majority of its workers)
- promised NYC billions of dollars, of which only half (?again, someone needs to fill in the correct numbers here) ever materialized
- gave local emergency responders more responsibility in national emergencies -- but did not increase funding for same
- did not increase inspections of containers coming into the U.S. -- still only 2% are inspected
- stated he wanted to get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive"; later changed his tune and said "one man isn't important" (clips of both would help here)
- allowed Osama bin Laden's relatives and their entourage safe passage out of the country via AIRPLANES when the air space was closed to the rest of us
- James Baker's firm is defending Saudi Arabia against a lawsuit brought by relatives of 9/11 victims -- include a reminder of the role James Baker played in the 2000 election fiasco in Florida
- resisted having a 9/11 commission; then drastically underfunded it ($3M initially, compare that to the $30M initial funding for the shuttle investigation, probably best not to mention the $70M spent on the Clinton investigation as that is a distraction -- but still)
- attacked Iraq for reasons now shown to be false, and knowing that Iraq was *not* a part of the Al Qaeda network
- using our troops for purposes tangential to real national security
- manipulating intelligence for their own purposes
- and of course, this ties directly into the Niger/Uranium claims, and the resulting Valerie Plame outing -- how's that for protection our national security?
- make people aware of PNAC, their "another Pearl Harbor" remark, their agenda, and how long they've been at it
- make people aware of the early planning for the Iraq invasion
- the infamous "Lucky me, I hit the trifecta!" remark
- the infamous "It's been a great year for Laura and me." remark
Ah well. I'm sure others on this board can fill out this list. In fact, I can envision three ads: one each attacking him on his leadership in the area of national security *before* 9/11, *on the day* of 9/11, and *after* 9/11. There is a huge amount of material. We don't have to try and press any tinfoil hat issues (e.g., LIHOP or MIHOP) because none of that is provable (yet) anyway. Just the facts -- they're damning as they stand. And don't forget to bring up the issue of *responsibility* and how many layers of this administration seem to successfully avoid accountability!
And of course, the Democratic candidate will have to have his answers honed when attacked back: what would you have done differently? aren't you denigrating the troops? how dare you politicize 9/11? etc., etc.
But my point is this: they've opened the door, and they've propped it open. They have refused to take 9/11 off the table. So be it. Bush & Co. want to run on *this* record regarding our national security??? Take it to 'em.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
