Eleven years later, the question remains: Does a President have any responsibility for the failures of his own government? Does the buck stop in the White House?
I consider a successful terrorism attack to be a failure. I'd expect a President -- any President -- to review what happened and fire those responsible. George W. Bush opposed the 9/11 Commission, refused to give a formal interview to Congress and promoted Condoleezza Rice. I think he failed to be responsible.
The most depressing thing I saw on TV during MSNBC's replay of the coverage of that morning was, before 12 noon, Tom Brokaw identified the prime suspect, Osama bin Laden, and cited a speech he had given in London the month before in which he threatened the United States.
Why wasn't Bush all over this?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, January 17, 2001)
SANDY BERGER, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: With survivors of the U.S.S. Cole reinforced the reality that America is in a deadly struggle with a new breed of anti-Western jihadists. Nothing less than a war, I think, is fair to describe this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
As Senator Carl Levin said as the new administration took office, "I'm concerned that we may not be putting enough emphasis on countering the most likely threats to our national security and to the security of our forces deployed around the world, those asymmetric threats, like terrorist attacks on the U.S.S. Cole, on our barracks and our embassies around the world, on the World Trade Center."
And where was Bush?
On January 25, 2001, five days after Bush took office, Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar, sent Condi Rice a memo, attaching to it a document entitled "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat of al Qaeda." It was, Clarke wrote, "developed by the last administration to give to you, incorporating diplomatic, economic, military, public diplomacy, and intelligence tools."
On February 26, 2001, Paul Bremer said of the administration, "What they will do is stagger along until there's a major incident, and then suddenly say, Oh, my God, shouldn't we be organized to deal with this?"
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, February 27, 2001)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Taliban in Afghanistan, they have offered that they are ready to hand over Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia if the United States drops its sanctions, and they have a kind of deal that they want to make with the United States. Do you have any comments?
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Let me take that and get back to you on that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Ari never did.
Clarke had a meeting with the deputies of Cabinet Secretaries in April of 2001, when, he says, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz insisted the real terrorism threat was not al Qaeda but Iraq.
Why a meeting with the deputies and not the Secretaries themselves? Bush had downgraded counterterrorism from a cabinet-level job, so Clarke now dealt instead with deputy secretaries. As Clarke told the 9/11 Commission, "It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies' committee didn't meet urgently in January or February."
The Secretaries' first meeting on al Qaeda was not until after Labor Day, on September 4, 2001. One week later, Bush got the word of the 9/11 attacks, stared like a deer caught in the headlights and pondered 'who could have done this?' Really? No idea, huh?
The CIA had been tracking Bin Laden for five years, and Bush had received 40 Presidential Daily Briefings concerning Bin Laden, and Bush was taken by surprise. [rolleyes]
I do not blame Bush for not connecting the dots; I do blame Bush for ignoring the dots. He did NOTHING -- no warnings, no follow-up questions. That's why I say, George W. Bush was derelict in his duty -- he willing refused to perform his duties of keeping Americans safe.
No comments:
Post a Comment