-
Ray Manzarek, R.I.P.
May 20, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Thoughts on The Tornado in Moore, Oklahoma
May 20, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Alan O’Day, R.I.P.
May 20, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Elijah Harper, R.I.P.
May 18, 2013 | 1 comment
-
That’s a Lot of Caca in Caracas
May 16, 2013 | 7 comments
The Spectacle Blog
In an op-ed for The New York Times, Vanity Fair contributing editor Kurt Eichenwald argues that former President George W. Bush was “deaf” to warnings about a terrorist attack in the United States.
Of course, this allegation isn’t new especially concerning the presidential daily brief of August 6, 2001 which stated “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” But Eichenwald claims he has read excerpts of previous presidential briefs:
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.
Yet by Eichenwald’s own admission, he has read only “excerpts”. Which means he hasn’t read everything and therefore doesn’t have the whole story. But even if he did I suspect he would only see what he wants to see. I also find Mr. Eichenwald’s hyperbolic prose lacking in journalistic detachment. It is troubling when Eichenwald deploys phrases such as “neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon”. These “neoconservative leaders” (who Eichenwald does not identify) didn’t “assume” anything. Like them or not, they were appointed by President Bush and confirmed by the Senate. It might be a minor point but it certainly suggests that we look at things through a particular lens which has been distorted by animus towards a particular ideology.
I was struck by this passage in particular:
In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush officials attempted to deflect criticism that they had ignored C.I.A. warnings by saying they had not been told when and where the attack would occur. That is true, as far as it goes, but it misses the point. Throughout that summer, there were events that might have exposed the plans, had the government been on high alert. Indeed, 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.
Well, it’s more than disconnected dots. Remember that Moussaoui was arrested by the FBI and the FBI office in Minneapolis didn’t exactly have its act together despite efforts to enlist the help of the CIA.
As for Kahtani, he is at Gitmo and is the poster boy for those who oppose enhance interrogation techniques.
Eichenwald ends his piece this way:
Could the 9/11 attack have been stopped, had the Bush team reacted with urgency to the warnings contained in all of those daily briefs? We can’t know. And that may be the most agonizing reality of all.
Given that Eichenwald acknowledges that the Bush Administration did not know when a terrorist attack would occur or where it would take place, what should have they done? What would have been a suitable reaction? Killing Osama? Assuming such an opportunity could have presented itself, it still might not have prevented the attack from being carried out. Or should they have broken up al Qaeda cells in the U.S. with mass arrests? If the liberal media objects to the treatment we dole out to terrorists following an actual attack then imagine their reaction if there had been no attack in the first place? Hindsight is always 20-20.
I am not suggesting that the Bush Administration couldn’t have made different choices. Yet it’s impossible to know if they would have made any difference. Despite the warnings, an attack of that magnitude was simply beyond our experience.
In the grand scheme of things, Eichenwald’s article only serves to a) fullfil The New York Times agenda of bashing Bush and praising Obama, b) agitate those who tend towards conspiracy theories and c) absolve al Qaeda of responsibility for its actions. Those might not be Eichenwald’s intentions, but they are surely its effect.
View all comments (14) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Aaron Goldstein
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/09/11/eichenwald-claims-bush-was-dea
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
AllAmericanAmerican| 9.11.12 @ 5:03PM
Uhhh, newsflash for you too: most Americans are still deaf...and blind...and ass-up when it comes to islam.
Mike in N.C.| 9.12.12 @ 11:29AM
I don't think so. I think most Americans realize that we can't fight the war on terror with conventional strategies and tactics. Bush proved this.
Stan25| 9.11.12 @ 5:55PM
Wasn't there a law on the books that prevented the FBI and CIA from trading information on terrorists? Wasn't this law signed by Bill Clintoon at the insistence of his assistant National Security Advisor? Somehow this idiot that wrote this column seems to forget. I can understand why too. It does not fit the narrative that Bush/Cheney were asleep at the switch.
Teflon93 | 9.11.12 @ 6:40PM
That would be Jamie Gorelick, who the Democrats made sure had a seat on the 9/11 Commission and who was rewarded with a cushy GSE job that gave her millions.
JD| 9.11.12 @ 6:02PM
Once again, liberals demand fantastic competence from some while expecting less than zero from many others. Judging from how badly they overlook their own hypocrisy, we can guess which category they fall into.
ejp| 9.11.12 @ 6:14PM
BILL CLINTON is the one who needs to get raked over the coals for being asleep at the helm (or in his case, too busy screwing with interns) and causing 9/11 to be plotted in the first place. But no, you're never going to hear that subject raised by the press for the first President they were willing sycophants for.
Teflon93 | 9.11.12 @ 6:39PM
Clearly Bush should have taken all the measures the Democrats have been howling about him implementing since after 9/11 so they could have claimed there was no threat whatsoever and impeached him.
Meanwhile, Clinton bears no responsibility whatsoever.
Bob K| 9.11.12 @ 7:07PM
Here we go again! Let us put Bush's responsibility into perspective here:
If Bush had some ham he could have made a ham sandwich if he had some bread.
Do you think the liberal dolts can understand that? Or will they blame him for not making a ham sandwich?
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 9.11.12 @ 7:59PM
I am not a conspiracy theorist so to say, but if I wanted to turn the Constitutional Republic of the United States into a corporate police state then I could not have asked for a better excuse than the terrorist attacks on 9/11. With our government supporting the Al Qaeda ridden FSA against Assad in Syria I cannot help but think that its possible that there are those in our government who maintained links with Al Qaeda after the Soviet-Afghan war and used them to further State Department goals in the region after the end of the Cold War. This is most certainly true of the Islamist volunteers (mostly Arab) who fought against the Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo and might even be true in regards to Chechnya and Dagestan where destabilizing Southern Russia would benefit Western oil and natural gas firms seeking to build pipelines from Central Asia and the Caspian Sea that would cut out Moscow from the equation.
Sjccoach| 9.11.12 @ 8:01PM
Once again an Am Spec CINO worries about what the New York Times reports. Except for you inside the beltway people nobody pays any attention to the New York Times.
C Bowen | 9.11.12 @ 8:40PM
It's a meaningless discussion. On one hand, of course Bush could have done more then trust a trillion dollar national security system to actually...protect national security.
That not one person resigned, even if for show (ahem, Condi Rice with National Security in your title) and not one person had their pension stripped, illustrated that there was and is a lack of honor and initiative.
Bob K| 9.12.12 @ 1:54AM
You have a point here!
There are times when one is President (and Commander in Chief) that one has to stop being a "nice guy."
And this should be hammered home to whoever is the Republican nominee during the campaign. I don't think either Bush or McCain got that message and Romney is certainly not getting it either.
There are too many "let's go along to get along" wanna be presidential advisers in the Republican political establishment.
pet products | 9.11.12 @ 8:57PM
never too much attention paid to terrorism
Mike in N.C.| 9.12.12 @ 11:32AM
In fairness to Bush, I don't think any of us could have envisioned the attack of 9/11 before it happened, briefings or no briefings. My problem with Bush is not that he failed to prevent 9/11, my problem is that he took his eye off of our real enemy to fight a war in Iraq and that he charged that war on the national credit card. In my book, that his still his responsibility.