We see reports that the CIA warned on attacks in 1995.
So we know that Clinton was warned, and on his watch, no successful terrorist attack occurred in the US. Bush failed on his watch.
Now, Bush brags that no further terrorist attacks have occurred. Right. It took the 911 traagedy to wake the fool and his team of sleep-walkers up so they would operate with the vigilance the Clinton team maintained.So let's get past all the questions of whether Bush knew. He knew what Clinton knew. Clinton didn't get an email from Al Qaeda telling where or when they were going to attack, but he maintained a level of defense and vigilance, a level of interagency participation that produced a clear, uncontestable result-- the USA enjoyed safety during his watch. The US was not successfully attacked by terrorists within our continental borders. The US enjoyed the last years in its history of the feeling of safety, the feeling that the US was not susceptible to attack.
The sense of safety from attack within our continental borders (not-including Pearl Harbor) was a benefit of living in the US that we enjoyed, that our predecessors enjoyed and contributed to. It was something we took for granted, without really thinking about it much, or appreciating it.
The total failure of the Bush administration to maintain that close to two century tradition of safety and security came about because the Bush team treated the Clinton team's ideas like poison. Taking the perspective that the Clintonites' ideas and advice were anathema, they left reports un-read and ignored warnings and advice. There's another example in history where an administration refused to heed advice. The Nazis refused to look at the potential power of the nuclear bomb because it was based on Jewish science.
Now, we hear spineless Bush administration appointees and the right wing whining echo chamber blaming Clinton for the 911 tragedy. But the truth is clear. The Clinton administration held the fort. They did what was necessary to protect American borders from being breeched by terrorists. They allowed Americans to feel safe, to trust the two century old blanket of comfort that all previous presidents and their administrations maintained. Bush and the right-wing take-over of congress and the judiciary were at the helm, leading the nation, when they allowed this almost two hundred year old bastion of American strength and security to be destroyed.
It is tempting to compare the 911 attack to Pearl Harbor. But it was a nation, a duplicitous nation that was still negotiating peace with us that attacked us in Pearl Harbor. We knew that Al Qaeda planned to attack us. They'd already declared their intentions. 911 was no Pearl Harbor.
The Bush national excuse for leadership team seems to believe that saying that there was no explicit threat evident is a good enough explanation for failing to protect America. This just doesn't cut it. They had a job of carrying on the responsibility of protecting America, not of responding to specific threats. They failed. The failure was because of arrogance and rejection of the information the outgoing administration offered and because of poor judgments on where to focus attention and resources. They were more interested in Star Wars programs, Iraq, Iran, Syria and other nations. They didn't GET terrorism, didn't get asymmetric warfare, and it was their failure to effectively digest and use the intelligence from numerous agencies that was readily available which led to their failure. This is all about leadership, plain and simple, leadership that failed. That is what will be remembered of the Bush presidency, besides it being a total sell-out to corporations, of course.
Excuses and explanations are a pathetically inadequate response to the reality that George Bush and his Republican backers in congress failed the nation unlike any previous time in the last two hundred years. And this is the issue Bush wants to use as the foundation of his re-election campaign? We'll see.
* * *Rob Kall firstname.lastname@example.org is editor/founder of OpEdNews.com. This article is copyright Rob Kall and originally published by opednews.com but permission is granted for reprint in web media,print, email, as a column, guest Editorial or Letter to the Editor so long as this credit paragraph is attached.. Over 100 other articles by Rob Kall