Tuesday, July 26, 2005

Bush ignored 9/11 warnings

Representative Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), who returned to the Senate this year after her 2002 election defeat, was joined on Friday by 9/11 family members and a number of other panelists to explore the questions left unanswered by the 9/11 commission about what the Bush administration knew about the possibility of attacks on the United States before 9/11.

The panelists argued that the Bush administration ignored warnings of an attack from the CIA, FAA, foreign governments, and others, that Osama bin Laden was planning an attack on the United States using hijacked airliners.

Why didn't George W. Bush do anything? The panelists argued the Bush wanted to expand his power.

In light of what we know now about Bush's plans to invade Iraq well before the 2000 election, I agree with the panelist's conclusion. I think it's entirely possible that Bush may have "misunderestimated" the extent of damage that could be inflicted by an attack. He may have had other things on his mind that summer before 9/11. We certainly know that he was too busy clearing brush, finding his voice, trying to figure out how he would ever fool the public into believing he was the president, trying to look presidential.

jcb382 commented on the news of the hearing:

Bush is described as a knave and a hand-puppet with Cheney telling him what to think, Rove telling him what to say, and Gonzelez running between the two fixing the legalities.

May Junior wear the yoke of 9/11 around his neck until his dying day, not just because he could have done more to prevent the attacks, but because there are now almost 1800 dead American soldiers, over 13,000 wounded, and tens of thousands of dead Iraqis, who all died because of the way that the Bush administration repeatedly lied about Iraq having a connection to 9/11.


At 7/26/2005 07:11:00 PM, Blogger Mixter said...

Amen! BushCo should wear the guilt and shame, but they never will feel it. They think they're doing what's right!


At 7/27/2005 08:10:00 AM, Blogger Schroeder said...

I am confident, however, that time will prove monkey boy to have been the worst president in United States' history. And that might be the most important outcome, for I hope this nation never makes the mistake again of even allowing such a worthless doofus to think about running in politics.

At 7/27/2005 09:00:00 AM, Blogger Mixter said...

Oh, I agree with you there. However, collectively we're not very smart when it comes to electing anyone.

Face it, you have to be rich -- or have a very rich group of friends -- to even run for a national office. It limits our choices, because the best candidate out there could be Mr. or Ms. $11/hour who knows a lot about how the world works, etc. but can't get a decent job due to our economy.

If we could reform the system so ANYONE could run, we'd have a much better selection.


At 7/27/2005 09:25:00 AM, Blogger Schroeder said...

Well then, I nominate you.

Publicly-funded campaigns anyone? This is being tested in some small communities where, if a candidate can reach a threshold count of small donors (to keep out the loonies), public financing kicks in.

You know, one of the biggest impediments to reasonably-priced campaigns is the media buys that candidates have to do to get their message out there, and to defend themselves.

Two things ought to happen:

1) Does anyone remember when "the people" owned the airwaves? Station owners should be required to air campaign information ads for free, and/or to air public forums.

2) Any campaign that runs an ad containing lies, or which leads any reasonable person to draw the wrong conclusion about an issue or opponent, should be fined in huge increments for each offense, up to a criminal offense for repeated occurrences.


Post a Comment

<< Home