Category Archives: 9/11 & Aftermath

Could 9/11 Have Been Prevented?

It seems heretical to even suggest it, but could it be that 9/11 was preventable?

Posted in 9/11 & Aftermath, National Security | 1 Comment

Richard Clarke Is Not A Lone Gunman

There is a sleeper (waking?) witness on Bush & 9/11: Sibel Edmonds, a translator who alleges that she was bougt off witgh a promotion to keep silent about the adminstration ignoring evidence that suggested an attack was being planned. (I first blogged Ms. Edmonds in January. She's interesting.)

Salon has an article quoting Edmonds as saying,

Referring to the Homeland Security Department's color-coded warnings instituted in the wake of 9/11, the former translator, Sibel Edmonds, told Salon, “We should have had orange or red-type of alert in June or July of 2001. There was that much information available.” Edmonds is offended by the Bush White House claim that it lacked foreknowledge of the kind of attacks made by al-Qaida on 9/11. “Especially after reading National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice [Washington Post Op-Ed on March 22] where she said, we had no specific information whatsoever of domestic threat or that they might use airplanes. That's an outrageous lie. And documents can prove it's a lie.”

Posted in 9/11 & Aftermath, Politics: US: GW Bush Scandals | Comments Off on Richard Clarke Is Not A Lone Gunman

Bush Flip-Flops (Again) on 9/11 Commission

This zinger:

“If the president of the United States can find time to go to a rodeo, he can find the time to do more than one hour in front of a commission that is investigating what happened to America's intelligence,” Mr. Kerry told hundreds of supporters at a rally in West Palm Beach on Monday afternoon.

Produced this:

White House: Bush will take all questions of 9/11 panel: President Bush will privately answer all questions raised by a federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House said Tuesday, apparently dropping a one-hour limit on the president's testimony.

The shift came on the heels of accusations by presumed Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry that Bush was “stonewalling” investigations of the terrorist attacks and U.S. intelligence failures.

This is Bush's second flip-flop on the 9/11 commission issue alone. And you wonder why — when faced with such a strong, resolute negotiator — the North Koreans are suddenly saying they have a new condition for scrapping their nukes?

North Korea's government said it will make the pullout of U.S. forces from South Korea a condition of a nuclear agreement, unless the U.S. stops insisting that an accord require the North to dismantle its weapons program first.

North Korea also will demand a “complete, verifiable, irreversible security assurance'' from the U.S. in exchange for American insistence the nuclear program be dismantled on those terms, the official Korea Central News Agency said in a release.

Of course, the two situations are not parallel: the Bush position on the 9/11 commission was absurd, while taking a tough line with North Korea is not. But will the North Koreans understand the difference? I think this Adminstration is starting to look weak abroad. I trust this doesn't mean we are in for a new round of foreign adventurism, if only because there are no ground troops left to spare to conduct it.

Update: Well, is it a flip-flop or not? The NYT version of the story suggests an administration artfullly trying to have it both ways:

He's going to answer all the questions they want to raise,” the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, told reporters today. When pressed, Mr. McClellan repeated this statement but did not clarify whether the time restriction had been dropped.

“That's what it's scheduled for, an hour, but look, he's going to answer all the questions that they want to raise,” Mr. McClellan said.

The spokesman said the president still planned to meet only with the panel's top two officials.

Whassamater, he's afraid of witnesses?

Another update: Actually, if this press gaggle is the source of the story quoted above, then it seems like the adminstration is not able to bring itself to say it will answer all the questions. Presumably, after about 68 minutes Bush will leave, and announce he answered an unprecedented number of questions. And the Republican chair won't contradict him.

Posted in 9/11 & Aftermath, National Security | Comments Off on Bush Flip-Flops (Again) on 9/11 Commission

Stonewalling the 9/11 Commission

The stonewalling of the 9/11 Commission continues.

Bush to Limit Testimony Before 9/11 Panel: President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday.

I have no idea what they think they gain by this. Is it easier to intimidate two people? Is it easier to stonewall without more live witnesses? Is there some other member of the commission who's being particularly agressive whom they want to keep out? Or is it just reflexive antagonism — fight about the shape of the table to distract from the substance?

Posted in 9/11 & Aftermath, Politics: US: GW Bush Scandals | Comments Off on Stonewalling the 9/11 Commission

Dingbat Kabuki

Josua Marsahll has a way not just with ideas but with words. What better phrase than “dingbat kabuki” to describe the bizarre and transparently fraudulent claim that House Republicans are rebelling against GW Bush's earnest and assertive request to extend the life of the 9/11 commission?

The White House's suggestion that Andrew Card's personal appeal to Speaker Hastert to make good on Bush's pledge to deliver an extra 60 days for the commission fell on deaf ears would be funny if the issues — the extent to which 9/11 was preventable, and what we can learn from the failure to prevent it — were not so serious.

So now I have two questions. First, which one of these three scenarios is at work:

  1. Karl Rove and Dick Cheney never planned to extend the 9/11 Commission's mandate past May, and Bush's pledge was a lie when uttered.
  2. Rove & Cheney did plan to extend the 9/11 Commission, but then backed off due to declining poll numbers, figuring it was better to take a hit now, from a disorganized limited and rushed report than later, closer to the election from a slicker, fuller report. [This seems to be Josh Marshall's assumption.]
  3. They did plan to extend, but the committee got frisky or got near something, and they decided to pull the plug.

My second question is whether, after being continually shafted by non-cooperation from the White House (refusal to testify, refusal to provide documents, bait and switch on the terms by which Commission members could see documents), and now by this latest promise reneged upon, even the Republican members of the committee — or at least one of them — won't develop enough patriotism to denounce the White House's sabotage of their efforts.

Posted in 9/11 & Aftermath, Politics: US: GW Bush Scandals | 2 Comments