Anyone concerned about the events of
http://www.houseofbush.com/bush_saudi_files.
The flights referred to were several commercial aircraft leaving the country with Saudi nationals aboard, immediately after September 11.
According to the report of the independent commission,
Reading the White House web site (www.whitehouse.gov) is a lesson in history, especially for the early months of 2001. Sometimes it does look as though the Bush administration was directed by evil stars, before 9/11, to do everything richly wrong.
Take one day in history,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/05/20010503-4.html.
It’s almost funny:
“This administration is deeply concerned about
Obviously, any remarks by GWBush addressing energy problems in
First, “Today, I am instructing all agencies, federal agencies, to reduce their peak hour electricity use in the state of
“Secondly, I am pleased to report that the Secretary of Defense, after a careful review, believes that this Department, which has got a large presence in the state of
In the White House press briefing the same day, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was on message with the same proposal: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/briefings/20010503.html#NationalEnergyPolicy.
In line with White House energy concerns on May 3, the GOP-led House of Representatives held a hearing on “Geothermal Resources on Public Lands,” one of a series of GOP-instigated attempts to move public opinion in favor of drilling in national parks and other federal land.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_house_hearings&docid=f:72134.wais
[So far as is known,
A few items of information, for context:
May 3 is also the date of a transcript from the ongoing federal terrorism trial, in
http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/us/terrorism/cases/background.html
On this particular trial date, in the US Court for the Southern District of New York (New York, NY, Honorable Leonard B. Sand, District Judge, presiding), one finds the prosecutors reviewing statements by terrorist suspect Wadih El Hage, about when he became aware of Usama bin Laden’s declaration “that America should be attacked.” Throughout the early months of 2001, during which time the Bush administration including Bush, Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice have repeatedly said they had no idea blahblahblah, federal servants were combing over defendants from the bombing of the
Also on May 3, the CIA sent a Senior Executive Intelligence Brief (SEIB) around to the top people in the Bush administration: title: “Bin Ladin Public Profile May Presage Attack.” (http://pocket-pc-ebook-reader.com/911/15.08.NOTES_TO_CHAPTER_8.htm)
Meanwhile, in other action that month — May 2001 — the administration introduced the “Visa Express” program in
Also on May 3, Bush appointed one of the administration’s remaining counter-terrorism experts as Ambassador to
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/05/20010504-3.html.
Also on that date, by coincidence,
http://www.house.gov/transportation/highway/09-05-02/waters.html
[It is hard not to notice the almost magically poor judgment so often exercised by GOP officeholders when it comes to genuine public health and public safety issues. They tend to be Johnny-on-the-spot about awarding big corporate contracts, though.]
[This is an edited version of a column from 2004, still applicable.]
John F. Kerry wanted terrorism to be reduced to a nuisance. George W. Bush was and is hyping and nudging terrorism to become a world war.
That, in a nutshell, is the monstrous situation facing ordinary people in
As time passes, Bush faces an increasing possibility of impeachment. More and more information is coming out that demonstrates that every argument used to justify invading
Meanwhile, prudent undertakings that could improve safety or reduce vulnerabilities are being neglected at best and actively undermined at worst. Rather than adopt intelligent diplomacy, the White House has thrown gasoline on the flames, partly by making offensively provocative personnel appointments. Rather than secure domestic sites, the administration has neglected to safeguard borders and ports, nuclear and chemical sectors. Genuine security experts still point out major gaps in aviation security, with AVSEC breaches continuously reported.
Rather than adopt consistent measures to stop up security breaches including financial chicanery from top to bottom, the administration turns a strangely blind eye to managerial ties that bind contractors in even our most sensitive sectors to foreign businesses and foreign governments.
That anyone like Bush could pretend to protect and defend the American people is Orwellian, although not merely Orwellian. He’s using his biggest weaknesses as weapons, the old guerrilla tactic in reverse (without being an underdog), since in “wartime” genuinely patriotic individuals are reluctant to point out lapses. Like envious Iago the petty, he traps critics with their own virtues.
The tactic is an assault on the polity, penalizing most those people who most care about participatory democracy. It benefits someone who wishes to undo every achievement left by the New Deal and producing a large and self-confident middle class, including a strong Social Security system, corporate regulation including a Securities and Exchange Commission, and retirement pensions and health insurance for ordinary people.
Domestic policy and foreign policy are often discussed as though they were separate. In this administration, the two are blatantly part of one picture. The objective of treating 19 skyjackers as though they were the late
One ironic result is that immense pressures have been piled upon the general public, the press and the loyal opposition, to sweep 9/11 under the rug. Vice President Cheney said many months ago on Meet the Press that we should put 9/11 behind us (a statement overlooked by major media outlets). The White House opposed forming any investigative commission as long as it could, stonewalled every congressional and commission request for key information, and is opposing 9/11 litigation to prevent discovery. Individuals willing to enrage the public by undermining every kind of investigation, through any avenue, are not going to give up easily.
Eventually, thinking people in the news media and in academia and in public office are going to have to face the key question: why would an administration so eager to exploit 9/11 be so intent not to investigate it?
Bob Woodward’s statement about the CIA leak case includes questions asked by the prosecutor but apparently not answered by Woodward.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111601017_2.html
Woodward says, for example, that Fitzgerald “asked if I had possibly planned to ask questions about what I had learned about
This question rises in the middle paragraph (graf 10 of 19 paragraphs; the page break on the Post’s web site), about as far down as you can bury a lede. Backward and forward lie similar questions.
“When asked by Fitzgerald if it was possible I told Libby I knew Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA and was involved in his assignment, I testified that it was possible I asked a question about Wilson or his wife, but that I had no recollection of doing so.” Thus possibly Woodward “asked” a question about
Continuing, Woodward says that “My notes do not include all the questions I asked, but I testified that if Libby had said anything on the subject, I would have recorded it in my notes.” The open question remains open: if Woodward had told Libby about
There is no reason to infer that Woodward told Libby about
Regarding the personal interview with Libby, the statement continues, “I testified that on
What about his handwritten notes? Or was this interview tape-recorded, as with the other interview mentioned previously in the statement? Why does the statement not clarify what records Woodward kept, in these four conversations pursuant to the inquiry?
“A portion of the typed notes shows that Libby discussed the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, mentioned “yellowcake” and said there was an “effort by the Iraqis to get it from Africa. It goes back to February ’02.” This was the time of
Regrettably, some larger questions promise to remain unanswered for a while. Did Libby get in touch with Woodward, or Woodward with Libby, in response to an article by Post reporter Walter Pincus, referring to Wilson’s Africa trip? Did that call, the day after Pincus’ article, set up the following interview with Libby? Was there going to be White House damage control at the Post, handled by Woodward?
In the interview, was Libby filling in for Cheney on the 18-page list of questions, including the yellowcake one? Did Cheney ever see any of those questions? Was Cheney around for the interview with Libby?
Was Cheney ever asked about the bogus Niger-uranium story, by Woodward? If not, why not?
And why does Woodward’s own statement publish questions not answered? Was that some journalistic muscle-flexing, to make up for all the previous knuckling under?
[This blog is a slightly edited version of this week’s column in the Prince George’s Sentinel.]