Why were there no "investigative reports" on Bush's (and his admin.'s) failures weeks after 9/11?

[jenmito]

Why was there no blame? Why were there no segments about "Keeping Them Honest" regarding missed signals ("Bin Laden Determined to Strike within America") weeks after 9/11? Why were there no questions about what Bush was told by the Clinton admin. and how he ignored the warnings that al Qaeda was the biggest threat to us? Why no talk about the largest attack on his watch making him a one-term president? If HE had been treated even a FRACTION as roughly as OBAMA is being treated now, I have no doubt he would've been a one-term president. (I know he wasn't even legitimately elected the FIRST time and he stole the election the 2nd time...)

[villager]

1. What's the Latin phrase for "the question answers itself?

;-)

[leveymg]

15. That was my first response, as well. But, the question deserves a serious answer. Here's my .02:

Q: Why were there no "investigative reports" on Bush's (and his admin.'s) failures weeks after 9/11?

A: There are a number of reasons:

* The only people who had the facts were potentially culpable and held security clearances - none were in the habit of talking openly about the compartmentalized CIA-DoD programs that allowed the hijackers to enter and roam freely around the U.S., in some cases for years before the attack. The operational guys at CIA-Counter Terrorism Center (CIA/CTC)under Cofer Black and Rich Blee were so concerned about security that they even withheld files from the FBI I-49 National Security Unit when John O'Neil's agents started demanding a look a certain files in June and July, 2001 that identified the Flt. 77 hijackers, who had been under CIA and NSA surveillance since 1999 and were apparently treated as double-agents of one or more allied intelligence agencies. The CIA, the NSA, and the uppermost echelon of the FBI had a vested interest in obscuring responsibility for operational failure, and in suppressing or deflecting the facts, because they had professional responsibility for managing the risks of this high-stakes program, and spectacularly failed in their duty.

* Bush was briefed repeatedly by Tenet in the months and weeks leading up to 9/11 about the threat, and Tenet flew to Crawford suddenly on either August 17 or the 21st to talk again to Bush. Tenet later perjured himself before the 9/11 Commission in his testimony about that. The Flt. 77 hijackers were watchlisted, but, only in such a way that they would be prevented from leaving the country. Bush basically said to his CIA briefers, "OK, you've covered your ass now." It was Bush's call not to roll-up the al-Qaeda cells known to be plotting hijackings and attacks upon "high-visibility targets" in NY City and DC. Bush was CIC, it happened on his watch - he needs to be held responsible, but probably never will. The American form of Gov't isn't set up to deal with such issues and to impose accountability at the top. It's a limited liability corporation.

* The corporate media operates according to the rule that they will never, ever publicly reveal classified programs, even those that have failed spectacularly. The few exceptions to that prove the rule.

If you want to read more details about the how and why of this greatest of intelligence policy failures, please see, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/4/810764/-Erik-Prince:-American-Bin-LadenCIA-Asset,-MoneyGunmen

[Cant trust em]

2. Because that was national security.

In that case we just jump on board.

Also, this has gone on for so long, it’s given a lot of time for people to second guess about the response. The spill keeps on going, so that must be someone’s fault. Unlike 9/11 which was a quick strike that didn’t require a coordinated response effort.

Also there's politics....

[jenmito]

4. Still...

nobody questioned WHY it happened. There had to be at least one or two reporters who wanted to get to the bottom of WHY. :shrug:

[Cant trust em]

7. Richard Clarke and Michael Moore.

Those are your guys.

Honestly, the blaming of Obama and Thad Allen for all of this is driving me nuts.

[jenmito]

8. That's true, but even that

criticism didn't get out for a few years IIRC.

[Blue Owl]

3. The old double-standard as usual

Remember how W would tell the nation he was "investigating himself" (heh heh heh)

[Turbineguy]

5. Too.....

depressing

[jenmito]

6. It sure is.

I guess I was venting in the form of questions.

[rocktivity]

9. Because there were white envelopes containing either white powder or a pink slip

floating around the media weeks after 9/11.

:(
rocktivity

[livetohike]

10. Because most people were waving their flags - the more the

better - as they drove around in their SUV's and Hummers and sucking the gas down like it was honey. Remember, no criticizing of the President was allowed. The media was embarassingly docile then and investigative journalism died. Besides "we" were too busy shopping as the idiot-in-charge advised us to do.

[Sebastian Doyle]

11. Because then we might have found out things they didn't want us to know

Like maybe specifically which traitorous scumbag pieces of shit at Gold Mansacks purchased the put options on United & American airlines.

Or why former SF mayor Willie Brown got a phone call from his good buddy Condasleezy Rice telling him not to fly on 9-11-01.

Or why the Bush Crime Family allowed members of the Bin Laden family to fly out of this country at a time when every other fucking airplane was grounded.

Just a few questions among the many which will probably never be answered.

[LaurenG]

12. Because the crazies are in charge. They are controlling the

"talking points." Our corporate masters do not like democrats. Democrats are more likely to give us a peek as to what they're up to so it's better to character assassinate them before they can pull the masters' cover.

[Festivito]

13. Because the media is SOOOOOOOOO left wing. ;-0

[Rosa Luxemburg]

14. the Media

the media are out to get Obama and bring him down. For George Bush he was a hero even though he put this country into jeopardy.