Correcting Bush's Revision of History

Perhaps the cleverest gambit George W. Bush managed to pull during his eight-year reign was to dodge all responsibility for the attacks of September 11, 2001. One of Bush's favorite closing arguments on his presidency is that he "kept America safe." Bush clearly wants to be judged and remembered by his record on national security, but apparently we must leave out the one little incident that was 9/11.

It's somewhat understandable why the country let it slide at the time. Democrats were too decent to pursue political gain while the nation was grieving and the media had no interest in playing the blame game. As the tragedy was fully felt, Americans were determined to unite, and Bush's approval ratings skyrocketed in the weeks that followed. Considering the context, this is more or less understandable (though the lack of checks and balances is hardly excusable).

But seven years later, it continues to elude many that President Bush had the responsibility to protect the country from attacks like 9/11. We still don't hear the outcry from the Democrats or the mainstream media when Bush and the Republicans tout their national security heroics. The media may ignore a lot, but to overlook this level of distortion is particularly surprising. It requires acrobatic leaps of logic to give special credit to the very people in charge during the deadliest terror attack in US history for having "kept us safe."

Have we forgotten that Bush responded to the August 6, 2001 memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" by going on vacation? Or that he hardly paid any attention to the intelligence dating back to January 2001 which insisted that al-Qaeda was an "urgent" threat? Or that in 2006 he closed down the CIA unit responsible for hunting bin Laden? The media doesn't remind us of these facts when Bush and the Republicans take credit for being America's saviors.

Keith Olbermann, one of the few mainstream commentators we can rely on to speak truth to power, exclaimed in a September 2006 Special Comment: "After five years of skirting even the most inarguable of facts -- that he was President on 9/11 and he must bear some responsibility for his, and our, unreadiness, Mr. Bush has now moved, unmistakably and without conscience or shame, towards re-writing history."

Even if 9/11 was unstoppable (a dubious assumption, to say the least), the real question remains whether or not Bush did everything he responsibly could to try and avert it. And the answer is a resounding no. George Bush has always maintained that history will cast him in a different light than today's verdict might suggest. But however history treats the outgoing president, there's no reason he should be vindicated for his criminal negligence on national security upon taking office, let alone be remembered as the man who "kept America safe." It doesn't take much effort to find the fatal flaw in Bush's argument - in fact it takes vigorous conditioning and in some cases serious effort not to see it.

Comments

[priorato]

It is obvious to any who has followed this issue that our Government was criminal negligent on 9/11, yet the 9/11 Commission did an excellent job at whitewashing the entire incident. The tragedy of the Commission was that Bush & Cheney actively worked to undermine its mandate; power; budget and final product every step of the way.

If Bush & Cheney had nothing to hide, why did they resist calls for an investigation? Why did they try to stack the Commission with loyalists? Why did they limit their budget & subpoena powers?

In other words, there was no objective, empirical inquiry into what happened on 9/11, and there is strong evidence to suggest it may have been a False Flag attack planned by rogue elements of our Government.

Before you write me off as a Conspiracy Theorist, let me state a fact: Ted Olson's appearance on CNN and other outlets where he said his wife called him and said the hijackers had box cutters was COMPLETELY CONTRADICTED by FBI evidence submitted in the Moussaoui trial.

it was all a lie...

[tompoe]

I agree, Sahil. Whoever was responsible for the planes crashing into the twin towers, and bringing down the three buildings in their own footprints, defying the laws of physics (official explanation, notwithstanding), did so before Bush decided to protect the U.S. from such attacks. Once they did, who better to look to than the person responsible for allowing the disaster in the first place. Who better, than the man who decided not to pursue Osama Bin Laden, because he was irrelevant to the war on terror. Lucky for us, Bush decided America should not sign on to the World Criminal Court, in order to protect our soldiers from false claims of war crimes. Curious, though, why he did that as his first act while crossing the threshold of the white house.

[6465billy]

Before throwing too many stones at Bush, lets wait and see how Obama and the Democrats (who already are fighting among themselves) keep us safe. All I see so far is chos and confusion among the Dem. and they have not even taken full power yet. Harry Reid will probadly be defeated in his next election because the Rep. have targeted him for defeat, and it already sounds to me like the Carter years again when the Dem could not rule for fighting among themselves. I can not wait until 2010 when we can throw the Dem. bums out.

[negogato]

Bush pre 9/11 and post 9/11 was no change. Warnings given to him continued to be ignored.
After 9/11 he remained passive and arrogant even after his biggest screw up.
You would think ignoring the warnings that came to him from January 2001 to August 2001 of an attack by al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden on US soil and then being attacked on 9/11 would have changed his behavior. But it did not.

It turned out really well - for him
so why do your job?

Warned about Katrina = he was passive except for PR
Warned about privatizing Social Security = he ignored the warnings.
Warned about bad intelligence on his charges for attacking Iraq = punish the messengers, out a CIA agent working to protect the USA from WMD's.
Warned about the economy = passive not believing.

He can be very belligerent when it comes to not changing his mind. It is Dangerous to cross him.
And he gets really angry when he is shown to be passive to real warnings.

I protect. No you don't.
No George, the only thing that protects the country is action in response to threats.
Your delusions are protecting only yourself.

[Eyckie]

Incredible that Bushco listened and received intelligence about 9/11 and ignored it. They then 'made up' intelligence that was 'proven' to be false and they acted on it. Bumbling idiots! 5 more days.

[TimDanMick]

Many in the Middle East see Israel as an American proxy. The enmity will never go away.

[Nova16]

To be attacked within the geographical boundaries of the United States with all the money spent on defenses--land, sea and air and with all the intelligence agencies and FBI there must be some "real" accountability for the disaster on 9/11, another day that will live in infamy in the hearts and minds of all Americans. Call it negligence of the highest order or just plain incompetence but this incident is so egregious in nature that it requires more probing than the outcomes we saw and heard from the 9/11 Commission. The events prior to, during and after are amazing examples of a government incapable of carrying out its duties and responsibilities in the best interest of the American people.

[LetMeUnderstandThis]

Everybody keep in mind that our enemies are not in a rush to attack us, they will take their time in doing so. Years mean nothing to them just the time execute with highest casualties possible, Men, Woman, and yes Children. So the administration hasn't really done much except stir up the hornets nest by going into no threat Irag instead of staying in Afghanistan where the culprit has been for the longest. Also keep in mind that bush has had the opportunity to kill Osama, what is the reason try the Bush and Saudi Royal family connection!

[bronceye]

The WTC was hit when Clinton was Pres. He found those responsible and locked them up. There was no bankrupting war. There was no other attack by foreign terrorists on American soil until bush took office.

[sink]

Not to support Bush in any way, but don't forget that the reasons anyone in the first WTC bombing got locked up is because they were stupid. One of them returned to the rental place to get his deposit back on the van he blew up. If not for that act of incredible stupidity, who knows if we would have brought anyone to justice.

[Nomccain]

Truth is, this Country will remain in harms way so long as a President of this country insists on occupying Muslim lands and exploiting their resources. If this is essential to this country's energy issue, then it is equally destructive to our national security. Why our politicians refuse to acknowledge this is totally beyond me. They don't want us there and are committed to running us out of their country. They'll fight us as long as we are there. We have given the extremists r easons to exist.

[LetMeUnderstandThis]

So how do you explain the first attack on the WTC? What land were we (America) occupying?

[Mystic01]

We had troops in Saudi Arabia. For Bin Laden that was excuse enough.

[jashu51]

Saudi Arabia. After the Gulf War, after Saddam was driven out of Kuwait, US troops were still stationed in Saudi Arabia. This was sacred land to Bin Laden.

[garymc8]

HWbush doctored satelite photos and told Saudi Arabia that Hussien was on their border planning an invasion. Based on this "faulty intel" bush senior talked the Saudi's into a base. Once the lie was revealed Bin Laden went on the revenge train. That is why we were attacked BOTH TIMES. Faulty Intel seems to be a bush family trait. Bet the bush family made almost as much as the Bin Laden family from the war.

[Kaviraj]

Occupation by BIG OIL of the oil wells in all of the Middle East and taking all the profits, together with their corrupt rulers is explanation enough for you?

[slarabee]

It is good that we continue having discussions like this one. It is over a decades that history is rewritten. We need to remember to make these very same statements every year on Sept. 11. We do no justice to the memory of the victims by allowing W. to skirt his responsibility.

[ouroborous]

This should provoke some interesting responses from the growing chorus on HuffPo that claims that we should "thank Bush for keeping us safe since 9/11".

He didn't, and in fact he may be partly RESPONSIBLE for 9/11 having been a success (from the terrorists' point of view).

[Senzasord]

The question of whether Bush tried to avert the 9/11 attacks is beside the point. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he actually engendered them. That he and his henchmen enabled Bin Laden and his agents to sneak into the country and pull off this atrocity. Bush was then able to claim war powers and begin his assault on the Constitution not only in the realm of destroying civil liberties but also bloating the power of the "Unitary Executive" far beyond anything the founding fathers, even Hamilton, might have envisioned. His reallignment of the three branches of government to favor a top heavy executive power supports his desire to be a dictator as witnessed by his remark saying as much. Heh Heh!

For all of that to be possible, he had to be a war time president, and needed a Pearl Harbor type of event. Who better to suply it than Al Qaeda. And so we have been consinged to hell for the last eight years.

[Rule Of Law]

Consigned to hell and still suffering third degree burns from the laws he passed and the ones he trashed. Repeal the unconstitutional patriot act and military commissions act. Shut down the dept of homeland defense. End the torture, rendition, and spying on our own citizens. Until those are done, we will always have at least our feet in the fire.

[Kaviraj]

Don't forget that al-Quaida is really and American Internatinal Company.
Set up to defend Afghanistan against the Russians.
As all Frankenstein creations, it comes to haunt its maker.

[Rule Of Law]

"Even if 9/11 was unstoppable (a dubious assumption, to say the least), the real question remains whether or not Bush did everything he responsibly could to try and avert it."

And the answer to both those is, no.

And the answer to that is in the economy we have today. Look at the massive redistribution of wealth and concentration of power in DC and on Wall Street, and you have your answer.