Tuesday, September 11, 2012

ON 9/11

Should one go back over my earlier blogs about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq he/she would note that there was a constant theme of criticism of the arrogance of the Cheney/Rumsfeld dominated Bush Administration.

That Waspish self centered concept that only they knew what was right led to their misconception about conducting a war in Afghanistan. I wrote that there could be no easy victory there; history had proven that many times in the past; yet these leaders expressed a belief that it would be a walkover.

It was that continued pretentiousness of the Republican far right that was one of the factors that resulted in my voting for Obama who not only represented a maturity in the American electorate; but promised an as yet undelivered reform in Washington politics.

Like all of us I had no knowledge of culpability of that leadership which led up to 9/11.

If one can believe and considering my opinion of the individuals involved, it is likely factual that there was a culpability of that administration.

Read these excerpts from two New York Times Op-Ed pages.

AUGUST '01 BRIEF IS SAID TO WARN OF ATTACK PLANS By ERIC LICHTBLAU and DAVID E. SANGER; Philip Shenon, Adam Nagourney and James Risen contributed reporting for this article
Published: April 10, 2004

“President Bush was told more than a month before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that supporters of Osama bin Laden planned an attack within the United States with explosives and wanted to hijack airplanes, a government official said Friday.

The warning came in a secret briefing that Mr. Bush received at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., on Aug. 6, 2001. A report by a joint Congressional committee last year alluded to a ''closely held intelligence report'' that month about the threat of an attack by Al Qaeda, and the official confirmed an account by The Associated Press on Friday saying that the report was in fact part of the president's briefing in Crawford.”

In Tuesday’s Times in on Op-Ed titles The Deafness Before the Storm KURT EICHENWALD# wrote

“That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.”

The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.”

But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster.”

“In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.’

“And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.”

“even as the Aug. 6 brief was being prepared, Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi believed to have been assigned a role in the 9/11 attacks, was stopped at an airport in Orlando, Fla., by a suspicious customs agent and sent back overseas on Aug. 4. Two weeks later, another co-conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui, was arrested on immigration charges in Minnesota after arousing suspicions at a flight school. But the dots were not connected, and Washington did not react

Would a Democrat Administration have reacted differently? We cannot contemplate. If the present Administration’s actions in countering the economic crisis including the application of Stimulus are examples it seems possible that they too would misread the data presented to them.

In this election we should not decide on past roles but rather we feel that the present Candidates offer and can deliver.

#Kurt Eichenwald, a contributing editor at Vanity Fair and a former reporter for The New York Times, is the author of “500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars.”

3 comments:

  1. Doc - How would you like it we one of us wrote an article that referred to that "jewish or hebrew or kike" mentality. Not fair to denigrate white anglo saxon protestants (or catholics) when no one else can do it to other minority creeds or ethnicities without getting executed for racism.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 11:49 AM, I am not being critical of any religious group or its followers. What I am referring to is a small self centered egotistical pocket of individuals who in this country happen to be Protestants and felt themselves to be so superior to those of other religious backgrounds or ethnic origins including Catholics and Irish or Italian descent that they should make all decisions since "those people" were incapable to do so.

    Fortunately this group is disappearing from society, yet there remains a few powerful enclaves that still feel superior to others. They were and still in some cases are the proponents of discrimination. In Plainfield up through the early post WWII decades we had such discrimination in such places as the Meadowbrook Apartments (No Jews-No Blacks and earlier no Catholics), The 'Hill/Sleepy Hollow section of the 2nd Ward and of course the PCC. Economics and the passage of time have brought about a complete change in all places.

    You are right that I was refering to a "mentality" which unfortunately still does exist among some people in authoritative positions.

    As far as a "Jewish or Hebrew mentality" I have no knowledge of any such thing unless you mean a diversified religious group, or support for Israel. As to the term "Kike" I would find it as offensive as if "one of you" used the N word, or spic, dago polack, bohunk, coon, or other similar names. There are too many of them that are unfortunately still commonly used with feeling.

    I am sorry if you found my post offensive and in the future will not use the term.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I read the NY Times piece and passed it along to Joe, with the comment, "We knew it all along," and he agreed. And yes--we did. But people were so fired up over 9/11 that they ignored the evidence that was present at the time--and then of course the totally unjustified war on Iraq distracted so many of the American people that the truth simply disappeared. It was always ridiculous to assume a conspiracy between Afgani fundamentalists and a secular Iraq. Remember that landing on the battleship with the sign, "Mission Accomplished"? Lies and deception from the Bush-Cheney White House!

    ReplyDelete