« Link Mining | Main | You Could Be Mine »

thinking out loud

I love the blaring headlines that say "9/11 Who's to Blame?" I thought perhaps we could blame, oh...al Qaeda? Maybe, just maybe, both Clinton and Bush both did all they could with the intelligence they had and 9/11 - or another day like it - were just inevitable. Just a thought.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference thinking out loud:

» It's al Queda, stupid from sisu
"I love the blaring headlines that say '9/11 Who's to Blame?' writes Michele at A Small Victory: I thought perhaps we could blame, oh . . . al Qaeda? Maybe, just maybe, both Clinton and Bush both did all they [Read More]

» http://www.diversionz.net/archives/003295.html from DiVERSiONZ
Well, just incase your sick and tired of all the Who's Fault is 9/11? news (and here's a thought: mabe [Read More]

» Carnival of the Cutups from sisu
A little over a week ago, we warned our readers: The fact-twisters are coming soon to a TV screen near you. Keeping our remotes handy, we tuned in and tried to determine which was the real Richard Clarke? The [Read More]

Comments

But that would require logic...

perhaps it was Danny Al-Kaye-da

Like most things, everything is crystal clear in hindsight. One could argue that all administrations made serious errors in underestimating the threat, didn't listen to experts, focused on the wrong "threats". The current pissing contest between all the various parties won't solve anything.

What is this crap? Being reasonable in a blog post? Hello?

;)

The media is full of accusations about who was to blame for 9/11, but I don't recall the media printing headlines or spreading news about possible attacks on a day to day basis before 9/11. So maybe it's the medias fault?

I guess they have never read the prophecies of Nostradamus...

Then again, maybe they did with all this BS serving as the appropriate recourse to cover their actions...

I blame the Cold War. Major terrorism occured during the late stages of the Cold War and we shrugged it off because there was a more important game at play. We put it in a little box marked "not important enough to deal with (right now)". Then we forgot that it was important to deal with eventually and when the Cold War ended we forgot it was there. The sporadic nature of terrorist attack attempts and, even more so, successes made it so easy to forget in between the big hits at home.

The first time Islamic terrorists killed scores of westerners in one blow was decades ago. We forgot. We ignored the problem exactly when we had an opportunity to do something about it and it got worse until we couldn't ignore it.

(P.S. And, of course the fault still ultimately lies with the perpetrators, as always.)

Wassamatta U?

Don't you know that no one in is Al Qaeda is running for office? This must be blamed on someone either in office, wanting to be in office, or somehow in the employ of the US government.

After all, this is an election year. Why are you worried about what's best for the country when you ought to be slammin' for your party? Get with the program!

Ok, I admit it. I take the blame. I cause terrorism. It's been bugging me for a long time, but I figure I should be a man and take the blame. 9/11 was my fault. I cause terrorism. Roots of Muslim rage? Me. I know I'll get a lot of hate mail, I just hope you guys accept my apology.

Once again, I'm sorry I caused all that terrorism.

Well after the Clinton impeachment hearing and the Florida fight I think the democrats are in a mood to try being shallow and partisan, but Bush has given them the worst possible issues for being partisan on.

Protecting the country from enemies.

So the democrats are making themselves into losers by picking fights on the one issue they should just agree to wholeheartedly. First Dean, then Kerry's 7 point drop causing equivocation, then these hearings.

I REALLY wish we had a democratic candidate who didn't try to bullshit with our security, but at least the bull doesn't feel like it's going to play in Peoria.

Well the BBC say that both Clinton and Bush spent too much time concentrating on diplomacy and not enough effort on military action.

I kid you not.

Excellent point. Sometimes the truth is right in front of you.

I wouldn't be surprised if the US government did have the information needed to stop 9/11. The problem is that it would have been buried in massive amounts of data that was useless or relevant to other issues. And it was probably scattered among several departments.

It's just not possible to adequately sort and correlate all the data collected by all branches of the government in a reasonable time. They have to guess what's important and which information is true and which is false.

Unfortunately, this means that it's often possible to go back with hindsight and point to the data and say, "See! You knew and did nothing!" It's always easier to see the data when you already know the answer...

Bolie IV

yes. al Qaeda. not Iraq. thanks for clearing that up.

Doesn't anyone watch southpark anymore? It's all Canada's fault. Duh.

"Well the BBC say that both Clinton and Bush spent too much time concentrating on diplomacy and not enough effort on military action."

After hearing that I'm going to hide under my bed. Surely the apocalypse is upon us.

Response to Wall Street Journal Editorial - March 26, 2004

DITTO - AMEN!

For once a member of the Fourth Estate rises above the din and takes its First Amendment journalistic responsibility seriously to report fairly and provide the in-depth analysis that we, the American people, so desparately need. This when we are at war with a very cunning enemy that may possess doomsday weapons of Armageddon and has no qualms about using them!

Ron Wright
Board of Directors
Homeland Security Policy Institute Group
www.hspig.org

Link:

http://hspig.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=629

*****

WSJ.com OpinionJournal

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004873

REVIEW & OUTLOOK
A President's Job
The 9/11 hearings: We're all Bush Doctrine believers now.

Friday, March 26, 2004 12:01 a.m.

Give President Bush's critics credit for versatility. Having spent months assailing him for doing too much after 9/11--Iraq, the Patriot Act, the "pre-emption" doctrine--they have now turned on a dime to allege that he did too little before it. This contradiction is Mr. Bush's opportunity to rise above the ankle biting and explain to the American public what a President is elected to do.

Any President's most difficult decision is how and when to defend the American people. As the 9/11 hearings reveal, there are always a thousand reasons for a President not to act. The intelligence might be uncertain, civilians might be killed, U.S. soldiers could die, and the "international community" might object. There are risks in any decision. But when Presidents fail to act at all, or act with too little conviction, we get a September 11.