Analysis and rationality in a nonrational world

August 15, 2006

Bush let the terrorists win – and is still letting them win

Filed under: Government — analysis @ 5:18 pm

The Bush administration likes to have people believe that if Al Gore had become president, based on the popular and electoral votes (as opposed to selected by the Supreme Court, then re-elected by means of more subtle electrion fraud), our response to 9/11 would have been different. The evidence shows that this is completely correct. We would never have fought Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. We would never have fought and beaten the Iraqi regime. We would never have implemented tougher security measures for air flights.

We would also not have lost the World Trade Center and a chunk of the Pentagon, because the terrorist attacks would never have occured.

The evidence of the 9/11 Commission and other sources is conclusive and hard to refute. Bush was briefed multiple times about security problems, even the specific “plane as bomb” scenario, in ways that make what was to happen nearly as clear as his fore-knowledge of Hurricane Katrina. His reaction was identical: ignoring the problem, because his own personal experts thought it irrelevant or even attractive. (And attractive 9/11 certainly was to George W. Bush, who had no popular mandate, who was down in the polls, and who had no popular following to speak of. After 9/11 he automatically became a hero and had a unified country behind him that gave him near royal powers; without 9/11 he could never have invaded Iraq, saved Halliburton from bankruptcy, and assured his and Dick Cheney’s continued wealth and power. Re-election was out of the question until 9/11.)

Had Al Gore been president, there is no question but that measures would have been taken to prevent the 9/11 incidents. Al Gore has never been known to be ignorant about important national security matters; nor has he put his own wealth ahead of the national welfare again and again. Whatever else you might think of him, and he isn’t my hero either, Al Gore does have a high degree of intelligence and can add two and two and come up with four – or, in other words, he can read intelligence reports and respond to them.

What’s more, there’s the infamous NORAD “call off the planes” command that has been wiped out from the nation’s history. When planes go off their courses and transponders suddenly disappear – very suspicious acts – the military is ready. War planes are supposed to take off and, if needed, destroy the wayward jetliners. The nation’s Air Force was definitely prepared for the 9/11 strikes before they happened; our generals are not morons. (I have enough respect for our troops and their military leaders to know that they had thought of this problem long before 2001.) But a command was apparently given to countermand this. All records of that command have been destroyed, according to our government, even though they would have been invaluable for prevention of a repeat episode.

After 9/11, Bush half-heartedly searched for Osama Bin Laden, but that search seems to have ended now. The troops are needed in Iraq. He also gave in to Bin Laden’s main demand, leaving our base in Saudi Arabia. And needless to say the war in Iraq is something Bin Laden would approve of: he toppled a secular dictator, killed tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, blemishing America’s reputation for at least the next few decades and bringing many new recruits to the loony terrorist fringe, is destroying America’s economy by putting is into hopeless levels of debt, and started a civil war in Iraq that may very well be won by Islamic extremists. Overall, an excellent haul for Osama Bin Laden.

I suspect G.W. Bush doesn’t mind at all. He’s been in power long enough to get electronic voting machines installed all over the country; redistricting and changes in election oversight nearly guarantee that his party will stay in power indefinitely; he himself will get paid for those hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer money diverted to crooks and profiteers once he leaves office; and it’s all been one big party for him. Most of those killed in the terrorist attacks were New Yorkers, and New Yorkers usually elect Democrats; and the majority of those killed in Katrina appear to have been Democrats as well. Since Democrats are liberals and liberals are communists and communists are traitors, it all worked out quite well for Bush and his crowd, who only care about (some of) the Americans they know.

Shamefully, the political experts who coordinate hack columnists and commentators across the country have set up their talking points to insinuate that the recent election in Connecticut – where Al Lieberman lost the primary because he supported Bush’s actions to fight an endless war in Iraq instead of to protect the homeland – will weaken this country. Leaving Iraq would not weaken America. Spending all our money – and borrowing recklessly to spend money we do not have – weakens America. Diverting money from homeland security – making it impossible to protect our ports and chemical plants, and not even checking cargo sent on passenger airplanes – weakens America. Kicking out a guy who doesn’t care about his constituents is called democracy, not weakness.

If Bin Laden and his terrorist gang intended to destroy the united States, they did a great job of it so far. This country united against Bin Laden, but since then has been led down a path that leads to failure, dictatorship, and perhaps theocracy.

To think, if the Supreme Court had done their job and waited a mere 24 hours before choosing a president, the worst thing we would have to fear would be socialized medicine.



  1. Had the planes been shot down before they could hit their intended targets, who would be making the most fuss about it? Check the man in your mirror. In the lamentable tradition of treachery giving comfort to the enemy (intentional in the case of Marxist-Fascists, unintentional in the case of citizens of gullible nature and/or little learning) via disunity, which political, chattering-class faction is guilty today? Oh, there they are…

    Comment by Cy — October 15, 2006 @ 4:29 am

  2. Sorry, I don’t see trying to crack down on war profiteering and simple bad leadership as being comfort to the energy. Nor do I see it as useful to label anyone who disapproves of war profiteering and allowing terrorists to strike their targets as “Marxist-Fascists.” Those who cannot think, label.

    Comment by Analysis — October 15, 2006 @ 12:53 pm

  3. I merely said that Marxists (who proved themselves to be fascists in the USSR and other nations of Cnetral and Eastern Europe), intend to to give comfort to the enemies of free, Western nations in order to destroy us so that the Communist Party can take over, It is one of their approaches. Labelling has nothing to do with it. Yes, Bush is a wimp. Yes, making a profit out of war is legal. To suggest that the enemy would not have attacked on 11-9-2001 if whatever whatever whatever is to misunderstand the enemy.

    By the way, there is a great letter in the Daily Echo, Bournemouth, today. As I kept trying to point out, Earth is warmer than of late, but not as warm as when we grew grapes in my old home city of York in the time of Robin Hood [MIT Sir Nicolas Stern].

    Comment by Cy — November 4, 2006 @ 5:41 pm

  4. Gee, is the USSR back already? I wasn’t aware communism was on the rise again. Well, that’ll help to fuel paranoia in anyone who isn’t already seeing Moslems under their bed.

    Marxists aside, DEMOCRATS, who are NOT Marxists any more than Republicans are, have criticized the war extensively because it (a) is being fought with profit, not military need, in mind; (b) there is no exit strategy or plan; (c) never mind, there’s no point in using logic here if you think all war protesters are Marxists. Why not just slap a label on everyone you disagree with? Far easier than actually thinking.

    There is a difference between profiteering and making a profit. Profiteering is when you charge billions and deliver nothing because you paid off the White House, and if you havent’ been reading a reputable paper, maybe you missed the almost daily revelations of White House approved profiteering.

    I’m glad to hear that global warming is not valid after all, because York, in the time of a person who in all likelihood never existed, grew grapes. Interesting to see that a single part of a single island can stand proxy for the entire world. I guess the melting of the polar ice-caps is in my imagination and I should stop worrying about it.

    Did you know there are “scientists” who claim that lead and asbestos are actually perfectly safe? This is why believing a single person who stands in the face of thousands of more qualified people might not always be the best policy – though SOMETIMES that one person is right. That’s happening less and less as science moves more and more from armchairs to observations.

    Comment by Analysis — November 4, 2006 @ 6:06 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: