Trump Is Right to Blame George W. Bush for 9/11

It is really frightening when I find myself agreeing with Donald Trump on anything.  I find man to be a loud mouthed egomaniac who is having a tempestuous love affair with himself.  Yet, on starting a narrative that Jebbie Bush's feckless brother George W. Bush - a/k/a the Chimperator on this blog - bears responsibility for the disastrous 9/11 attacks  - Trump is on the mark.  It's a conversation that needs to be had, especially with yet another doltish Bush seeking the White House.  A piece in The Atlantic makes the case that the Chimperator and his puppeteer Dick Cheney could have perhaps stopped the attacks had they paid attention to information in their possession.  Here are article excerpts:

His [Trump's] latest ugly truth came during a Bloomberg TV interview last Friday, when he said George W. Bush deserves responsibility for the fact that “the World Trade Center came down during his time.” Politicians and journalists erupted in indignation. Jeb Bush called Trump’s comments “pathetic.” Ben Carson dubbed them “ridiculous.”

Former Bush flack Ari Fleischer called Trump a 9/11 “truther.” Even Stephanie Ruhle, the Bloomberg anchor who asked the question, cried, “Hold on, you can’t blame George Bush for that.”

Oh yes, you can. There’s no way of knowing for sure if Bush could have stopped the September 11 attacks. But that’s not the right question. The right question is: Did Bush do everything he could reasonably have to stop them, given what he knew at the time? And he didn’t. It’s not even close.

When the Bush administration took office in January 2001, CIA Director George Tenet and National Security Council counterterrorism “czar” Richard Clarke both warned its incoming officials that al-Qaeda represented a grave threat. During a transition briefing early that month at Blair House, according to Bob Woodward’s Bush at War, Tenet and his deputy James Pavitt listed Osama bin Laden as one of America’s three most serious national-security challenges. That same month, Clarke presented National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice with a plan he had been working on since al-Qaeda’s attack on the USS Cole the previous October. It called for freezing the network’s assets, closing affiliated charities, funneling money to the governments of Uzbekistan, the Philippines and Yemen to fight al-Qaeda cells in their country, initiating air strikes and covert operations against al-Qaeda sites in Afghanistan, and dramatically increasing aid to the Northern Alliance, which was battling al-Qaeda and the Taliban there.

But both Clarke and Tenet grew deeply frustrated by the way top Bush officials responded. Clarke recounts that when he briefed Rice about al-Qaeda, “her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard the term before.” On January 25, Clarke sent Rice a memo declaring that, “we urgently need…a Principals [Cabinet] level review on the al Qida [sic] network.”

By early summer, Clarke was so despondent that he asked to be reassigned. “This administration,” he later testified, “didn’t either believe me that there was an urgent problem or was unprepared to act as though there were an urgent problem. And I thought, if the administration doesn’t believe its national coordinator for counterterrorism when he says there’s an urgent problem and if it’s unprepared to act as though there’s an urgent problem, then probably I should get another job.”  

During that same time period, the CIA was raising alarms too. According to Kurt Eichenwald, a former New York Times reporter given access to the Daily Briefs prepared by the intelligence agencies for President Bush in the spring and summer of 2001, the CIA told the White House by May 1 that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist attack. On June 22, the Daily Brief warned that al-Qaeda strikes might be “imminent.”

But the same Defense Department officials who discounted Clarke’s warnings pushed back against the CIA’s. According to Eichenwald’s sources, “the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled . . . 

The following day [July 30], the CIA included in its Daily Brief an article entitled “Bin Laden Threats Are Real.” On July 1, the Brief predicted that an attack “will occur soon.”Then, on July 10, Tenet and CIA counterterrorism head Cofer Black held an emergency meeting with Rice to push for action against Bin Laden. But according to Woodward’s State of Denial, “both felt they were not getting through to Rice.” 

The warnings continued. On July 11, the CIA sent word to the White House that a Chechen with links to al-Qaeda had warned that something big was coming. On July 24, the Daily Brief said the expected al-Qaeda attack had been postponed but was still being planned. Finally, on August 6, the CIA titled its Daily Brief: “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike the US.” The briefing didn’t mention a specific date or target, but it did mention the possibility of attack in New York and mentioned that the terrorists might hijack airplanes.

[I]t was the 36th time the CIA had raised al-Qaeda with President Bush since he took office.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, Clarke’s anti-al-Qaeda plan was sitting on Bush’s desk, awaiting his signature. It was the ninth National Security Presidential Directive of his presidency.

Would the Bush administration have stopped the 9/11 attacks had it taken the threat more seriously? Possibly.

On August 16, FBI and INS agents in Minnesota arrested another potential hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui, after being tipped off by his flight instructor. But despite numerous requests, they were denied permission to search his apartment or laptop. These incidents “might have exposed the” 9/11 plot, writes Eichenwald, “had the government been on high alert.”

Four Americans died in Benghazi.  Far more than 3,000 died on 9/11.  If the House Republicans want to hold hearings on terror attacks, they need to reopen an investigation of how Bush/Cheney failed to keep America safe - not to mention launched a war based on deliberate lies that took thousands of more American lives.

 

Heading Towards Another Vietnam

While the initial deployment of troops to Afghanistan in the immediate wake of 9-11 may have made some sense in terms of trying to break Al-Queda, that rational was long ago destroyed by the Chimperator and Palpatine Cheney's feckless and needless invasion of Iraq. The window of opportunity in Afghanistan was lost and it is not likely to be reclaimed. Relying on the military leadership's calls for more troops as a basis for political decisions is idiocy. Living in a region with a huge military presence and close contact with the military mindset of senior officers, there will NEVER be a time when the leadership will realistically admit that more troops and more spending are not the answer. Ultimately, their job is to wage wars and in an absence of a real war they are never content with make believe war games. Combine this reality with a knowledge of the history of Afghanistan and the inability of any foreign power to bring it under control over the course of more than 2,500 years, and Obama's decision to send 30,000 more U.S. troops is revealed as a fool's errand. Former Senator George McGoven has an op-ed piece in the Washington Post that looks at this reality. Here are some highlights:

*
As a U.S. senator during the 1960s, I agonized over the badly mistaken war in Vietnam. After doing all I could to save our troops and the Vietnamese people from a senseless conflict, I finally took my case to the public in my presidential campaign in 1972. Speaking across the nation, I told audiences that the only upside of the tragedy in Vietnam was that its enormous cost in lives and dollars would keep any future administration from going down that road again.
*
I was wrong. Today, I am astounded at the Obama administration's decision to escalate the equally mistaken war in Afghanistan, and as I listen to our talented young president explain why he is adding 30,000 troops -- beyond the 21,000 he had added already -- I can only think: another Vietnam. I hope I am incorrect, but history tells me otherwise.
*
We have had tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan for several years, and we have employed an even larger number of mercenaries (or "contractors," as they're called these days). As in Vietnam, the insurgent forces are stronger than ever, and the Afghan government is as corrupt as the one we backed in Saigon.
*
Why do we send young Americans to risk life and limb on behalf of such worthless regimes? The administration says we need to fight al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. But the major al-Qaeda forces are in Pakistan. The insurgency in Afghanistan is led by the Taliban. Its target is its own government, not our government.
*
Starting in 1979, the Soviets tried to control events in Afghanistan for nearly a decade. They lost 15,000 troops, and an even larger number of soldiers were crippled or wounded. Their treasury was exhausted, and the Soviet Union collapsed. A similar fate has befallen other powers that have tried to work their will on Afghanistan's collection of mountain warlords and tribes.
*
Even if we had a good case for a war in Afghanistan, we simply cannot afford to wage it. With a $12 trillion debt and a serious economic recession, this is not a time for unnecessary wars abroad. We should bring our soldiers home before any more of them are killed or wounded -- and before our national debt explodes.
*
Obama has the capacity to be a great president; I just hope that Afghanistan will not tarnish his message of change. After half a century of Cold War and hot wars, it is time to rebuild our great and troubled land. By closing down the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, we can divert the vast sums being spent there to revitalizing our own nation. In 1972, I called on my fellow citizens to "Come home, America." Today, I commend these words to our new president.
*
Having lived through the Vietnam era, I continue to have a sickening feeling of deja vue and wonder why our civilian leaders never seem to learn the lessons of history and go on to repeat the same mistakes while relying on the promises of military commanders.

Bush Iraq Crusade Continues to Help Taliban

The New York Times has yet another disturbing story on the growing power of the Taliban - you know, the group ACTUALLY in league with Al-Qeada - in Afghanistan and, more frighteningly, in Pakistan, a nation that DOES, in fact, have atomic weapons other than in the delusional mind of the Chimperator. While the USA removed Saddam, it has in many ways destroyed the nation of Iraq and meanwhile left the true enemies to rebuild and perhaps even flourish in some areas. Definitely a case of taking one's eye of the ball. That's assuming the idiot Chimperator ever knew what the ball was. A noted in passing yesterday the cretin's approval rating had dropped to 27%, a new low. Heck of a Job, Chimpy! Here are some highlights from the Times story:

*

Now the area, around the town of Parachinar, is near the center of the new kind of struggle. The Taliban have inflamed and exploited a long-running sectarian conflict that has left the town under siege. The Taliban, which have solidified control across Pakistan’s tribal zone and are seeking new staging grounds to attack American soldiers in Afghanistan, have sided with fellow Sunni Muslims against an enclave of Shiites settled in Parachinar for centuries. The population of about 55,000 is short of food. The fruit crop is rotting, residents say, and the cost of a 66-pound bag of flour has skyrocketed to $100.

*

And, in a mini-conflict that yet again demonstrates the growing influence of the Taliban and the Pakistan government’s lack of control over this highly sensitive border area, young and old, wounded and able-bodied, have become refugees in their own land. Last month, a Pakistani government relief convoy loaded with food and medicines that had been sent to break the siege was attacked by the Taliban at the village of Pir Qayyum. Many of the 22 vehicles were burned and 12 drivers were killed by the Taliban, according to government officials here and Shiites.

*

Groups of Taliban affiliated with Mr. Mehsud, who according to the Bush administration is supported by Al Qaeda, now control wide swaths of the tribal areas, from Waziristan in the south to Bajur in the north. From some parts of the tribal areas, like Waziristan and Mohmand, the Taliban have stepped up their operations into Afghanistan against NATO and American soldiers, cross-border attacks that have resulted in rising casualties for coalition forces over the last two months, the Bush administration said.

*

To try to quash the Taliban, the ministry would urge the local tribes to form small armies, known as lashkar, he said. The ministry was also offering local people financial rewards, he said, if they killed a Taliban leader. But whether the army would take a role in the efforts to find a solution appeared to remain an open question.

The Terror Card

In my view, it borders on the obscene that Charles Black, one of John McCain's (or McSenile to be more accurate) top advisors made a statement last week that sounded almost as if he'd welcome a terror attack on the USA between now and election day. Anything to win, I guess, but do we really want this kind of mindset again in the White House? I most surely do not and, if the GOP is doing such a supposedly wonderful job, why do we even need to still be concerned with potential terror attacks? Could it be because the delusional Chimperator took his eye off the ball - i.e., Al-Queada - and went off on a fool's errand in Iraq? A venture that McSenile supports, by the way. It is also interesting to note that the other pillar of the GOP fear mongering is that of us scary gays. Why is it that Obama and the Democrats offers a message of hope and improvements, while the GOP seems to only be able to summon up a message of fear as a reason to vote for them? Here are some highlights from Frank Rich's column in today's New York Times that properly take Mr. Black and the GOP to task:

*

DON’T fault Charles Black, the John McCain adviser, for publicly stating his honest belief that a domestic terrorist attack would be “a big advantage” for their campaign and that Benazir Bhutto’s assassination had “helped” Mr. McCain win the New Hampshire primary. His real sin is that he didn’t come completely clean on his strategic thinking. . . . Would the attack be most useful if it took place in a red state, blue state or swing state? How much would it “help” if the next assassinated foreign leader had a higher name recognition in American households than Benazir Bhutto?

*
Unlike Hillary Clinton’s rumination about the Bobby Kennedy assassination or Barack Obama’s soliloquy about voters clinging to guns and faith, Mr. Black’s remarks were not an improvisational mishap. He gave his quotes on the record to Fortune magazine. He did so without thinking twice because he was merely saying what much of Washington believes.

*

That equation was the creation of Karl Rove. Among the only durable legacies of the Bush presidency are the twin fears that Mr. Rove relentlessly pushed on his client’s behalf: fear of terrorism and fear of gays. But these pillars are disintegrating too. They’re propped up mainly by political operatives like Mr. Black and their journalistic camp followers — the last Washington insiders who are still in Mr. Rove’s sway and are still refighting the last political war.

*

If a terrorist bomb did detonate in an American city before Election Day, would that automatically be to the Republican ticket’s benefit? Not necessarily. Some might instead ask why the Bush White House didn’t replace Michael Chertoff as secretary of homeland security after a House report condemned his bungling of Katrina. The man didn’t know what was happening in the New Orleans Convention Center even when it was broadcast on national television.

*

Next, voters might take a hard look at the antiterrorism warriors of the McCain campaign (and of a potential McCain administration). . . . Take — please! — the McCain foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann. He was the executive director of the so-called Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, formed in 2002 (with Mr. McCain on board) to gin up the war that diverted American resources from fighting those who attacked us on 9/11 to invading a nation that did not. Thanks to that strategic blunder, a 2008 Qaeda attack could well originate from Pakistan or Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden’s progeny, liberated by our liberation of Iraq, have been regrouping ever since.

*

Then there is the McCain camp’s star fearmonger, Rudy Giuliani, who has lately taken to railing about Mr. Obama’s supposed failure to learn the lessons of the first twin towers bombing. The lesson America’s Mayor took away from that 1993 attack was to insist that New York City’s emergency command center be located in the World Trade Center. No less an authority than John Lehman, a 9/11 commission member who also serves on the McCain team, has mocked New York’s pre-9/11 emergency plans as “not worthy of the Boy Scouts.”

*

But you can’t blame the McCain campaign for clinging to terrorism as a political crutch. The other Rove fear card is even more tattered. In the wake of Larry Craig and Mark Foley, it’s a double-edged sword for the G.O.P. to trot out gay blades cavorting in pride parades in homosexual-panic ads. Some on the right still hold out hope otherwise. After the California Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage, The Weekly Standard suggested that a brewing backlash could put that state’s “electoral votes in play.” But few others believe so, including the state’s Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger who has vowed to enforce the law and opposes a ballot initiative to overturn it. Even Bill O’Reilly recently chastised a family-values advocate for mounting politically ineffectual arguments against same-sex marriage.

Chimperator's Mindless Crusade in Iraq Continues to Make Us Less Safe

Just think what things might have been like if the USA had stayed focused on Afghanistan and weeding out the Taliban and Al-Qaeda rather than the Chimperator launching his hubris driven, hair brained crusade in Iraq. Besides the trillions of dollars that might have been saved and the thousands and thousands of lives - both American and Iraqi - that would not have been lost, the world and the USA might have actually been more safe and secure. But instead, the Chimperator thought he heard voices telling him what to do - would that the cretin had been removed from office and committed to a mental hospital somewhere. Now, as this story from the Globe and Mail suggests, things are continuing to go to Hell on a wider and wider scale with Pakistan (which has nuclear weapons) now in growing jeopardy. Here are some highlights:

*

PESHAWAR, PAKISTAN — Security around Peshawar, the provincial capital in northwest Pakistan, has been dramatically stepped up amid fears that the city could fall to heavily armed Islamic militants who have now massed around its outskirts. From three sides, Peshawar, which borders Pakistan's wild tribal belt, is menaced by Taliban groups and other warlords.

*
If Peshawar is taken over by extremists, the rest of the North West Frontier Province is also threatened, raising the possibility that religious fundamentalists may gain control of a state on Afghanistan's border. The drama in Peshawar reinforces existing doubts about the new Pakistani government's policy of pulling back the army and seeking peace deals with militants.

*

“[Central] government has not got to grips with the problem,” said one provincial government official who decline to be identified. “Things have moved fast and unpredictably. Last month we drew up a plan for the defence of Peshawar. We have a vast area to defend and our forces are thinly spread. They [the militants] have mobility and guerrilla tactics.”

*

Residents of Peshawar, a colourful city of three million, have become alarmed at developments in and around the city. Militants have started openly entering Peshawar to threaten businesses they disapprove of, such as music shops. Last week, a band loyal to warlord Mangal Bagh arrived in several pickup trucks in Peshawar and abducted a group of Christians. They were released after 12 hours.

Terror experts are confounded by the unusual profiles of those arrested in the British plots. Is there an Iraqi connection?

I believe most of us are waiting to get concrete answers to this question. Here is some of Newsweek's most recent coverage:

U.S. and British authorities are looking into the possibility that one or more of the medical workers arrested in the failed attacks may have had contact with Al Qaeda in Iraq, formed after the 2003 invasion of Iraq and loosely affiliated with Al Qaeda’s high command. An official familiar with the investigation said that no firm connection had yet been established between any of the suspects and the Iraq group, and there certainly is no evidence yet that it might have orchestrated the U.K. plot. But, said the official, there may be reason to suspect that those detained have been in touch with known associates of the ultra-violent insurgent group set up by Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi.

However, because the Iraq connection is so tentative at this stage, officials on both sides of the Atlantic remain skeptical that the U.K. plot was orchestrated by Al Qaeda’s top leaders. For a start, the bombings themselves were so thoroughly bungled that it’s seen as unlikely that Osama bin Laden or his main associates had any direct role. U.S. and British officials said it was still a possibility that the attacks were largely planned on British soil, even though it appears that few, if any of the plotters, fit the profile of the native-born, alienated British Muslims who have been implicated in other recent U.K. terror plots.

British and U.S. officials contacted by NEWSWEEK said investigators were still trying to figure out how the suspects in the plot—eight have now been arrested in the U.K. and Australia, and seven are believed to be doctors or medical students—got together to plan and carry out the failed bombings. A British official said it was possible all had somehow cooked up the plot before coming to Britain. But it is also possible they did not meet up until after all were in the country, where they appear to have had easy entrée to Britain’s medical education and nationalized health-care systems.

I again can only wonder how those in training to heal the sick and bring comfort to those suffering from disease can be set on a track to dispense death and destruction. If the motivation is in fact religious fanaticism, it will be most disturbing.