Skip to comments.NY Times Reporter Accuses Bush of 'Negligence' Regarding 9/11 (What a disgusting pos)
Posted on 09/11/2012 6:38:29 PM PDT by Kaslin
On this solemn day, most of the nation mourns the loss of life that occurred on this day eleven years ago and contemplates the changes that have occurred since then. Most, but not all. Kurt Eichenwald, contributing editor for Vanity Fair and writer for the New York Times, published an inflammatory op-ed accusing former President Bush of not preventing the attacks:
While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administrations reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed.
Trust me, he tells us. He read the documents and knows that the administration responded with negligence. This is no light accusation. Eichenwald is accusing the President of knowingly putting the American people at risk. Exactly why President Bush would do this is never specified beyond the explanation that, the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled The evil and ever elusive neo-cons were behind this alleged (and completely undocumented) negligence.
According to Eichenwald, solid evidence demonstrating an imminent threat was outlined in Presidential Daily Briefings. The same briefings Bush attended religiously because he prioritized our national security. Eichenwald cites the most damning:
By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that a group presently in the United States was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be imminent, although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible .Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have dramatic consequences, including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but will occur soon.
What could the President have done with this information? They believed there was a group planning an attack soon. Where were they planning? What would this attack look like? What are the names of the people involved? If these details, which would help Eichenwalds case, were present in the documents he obtained, why would he not include those? All this proves, if it is to be taken at face value, is that there was a threat, not that Bush didnt take it seriously or could have prevented it.
Eichenwald insists on drawing broader conclusions though, despite the limited nature of the facts before him. He reaches a new level of indecency and complete disregard for history when he continues:
Yet, the White House failed to take significant action Could the 9/11 attack have been stopped, had the Bush team reacted with urgency to the warnings contained in all of those daily briefs? We cant ever know. And that may be the most agonizing reality of all.
Eichenwalds whole argument falls apart with these sentences. Its a cop out to speculate that had someone acted differently, the outcome would have been different. This could be said about anything. Its demonstrative of Eichenwalds ignorance and eagerness to throw Bush under the bus that he doesnt say what this different action would look like.
In an interview this morning on Morning Joe, Eichenwald could not defend himself and was completely torn apart by Former NY Governor Pataki:
Eichenwald asserts that the Clinton-Gore administration understood the changing roles of nation-states better than the Bush administration. Since President Bush did not, according to Eichenwald, accept this view of the evolving system of international relations, he was fooled. But when asked by Jon Meacham if a hypothetical President Gore could have taken some mysterious, unnamed preventative action and stopped 9/11 from happening, Eichenwald cannot answer definitively.
Its easy to retroactively look back and say things should have been done differently. Its harder to lead through those difficult times and take the necessary actions to make America secure again, as Bush did. Governor Pataki could not have said it better:
To look 11 years later and say, this was happening before September 11th, in the summer, and to go through and selectively take out quotes and say, you should have done that, you should have done that, I think is incredibly unfair and a disservice to history.
Eichenwald’s a stinky little fart.
GW Bush was not negligent, even Bill Clinton was not negligent.
I am sick to death of fracking liberals blaming GW Bush for everything.
There were hundreds and hundreds of documents..........unfortunately the people looking at these documents made mistakes.
The ONLY people responsible were the followers of islam.
islam wants to kill us, they have been saying so since Thomas Jefferson.
What was in the documents Sandy Berger stole and destroyed during the 911 hearings —Clinton cover up anybody
first WTC attack
twice turned down ops to take out UBL
too busy staining a blue dress
Same reporters would have been outraged at the arrest of the terrorists prior the attack.
Same faction now upset at all measures taken to stop all future attacks.
Give NYC to the Arabs for peace,
They can have it,.
Little Nazi fags can be so obnoxious sometimes. Yo Kurt! KMA!
It's easy, after the fact, to go back and find “irrefutable” intelligence indicating a given attack would occur. The truth is, there was also irrefutable evidence of 999 other possible attacks as well.
This is what makes intel such a thankless job. No matter what happens, at the end of the day, you're wrong.
There’s a reason none of the planes crashed into the New York Times building ~ and it’s not a nice one.
Former New York Times reporter Kurt Eichenwald was in an Ann Arbor, Michigan, courtroom this morning, a witness in a child-porn prosecution captioned State of Michigan v. Kenneth Gourlay. But when Eichenwald took the stand, it could have been renamed “$2,000 Check v. Journalism 101” and Eichenwald’s testimony showed he knows he broke the rules.
Hard to "connect the dots" when you only have 1/2 of the picture.
scum attack ..what a low nasty thing to do on 911..
Kurt Eichenwald - former speechwriter for candidate Walter Mondale’s Presidential race
Did you see the docudrama, Path to 9-11?
This Disney picture makes a clear case of negligence preceding the Bush Administration.
This jackass reporter is attempting to rewrite history.
This is documented in the now censured docudrama, Path to 9-11.
Bush inherited the Clinton 8 year Administration’s security system/program/personnel.
Field FBI agents warned of suspicious activities by foreign students at two flight training schools in Arizona and Minnesota, but these warning were ignored by Mid-Level FBI administrators (under Louis Freh’s command). If these individuals had been picked up and questioned in the months before 9/11, 9/11 would not have happened.
Also, Clinton did a general “stand-down” of US continental defense forces in 1994-95, as a result of believing that the Cold War dangers of a surprise air attack/missile attack were almost nil.
NO ARMED FIGHTERS WERE STATIONED AT ANDREWS AIR FORCE BASE RIGHT ACROSS THE RIVER FROM DC. NONE WERE ON DUTY AT BOLLING AFB IN DC. The nearest planes that could be armed were at Langley AFB in southern Virginia, over 90 miles away. They arrived too late to shoot down the plane that hit the Pentagon (and which flew literally right by my house).
My source: One of the participants in the “stand down” program who explained its nuances to an audience at the National Archives a year or two after 9/11.
Note that no Shoulder-Fired AA missiles were used at the Pentagon, nor was it known if any even were stationed at the Capitol or White House. This was Clinton’s (and Secret Service, etc) most aggregious mistake. You never leave your main C&C centers unguarded, ever.
Also remember, a new administration has to have at least 6 months to adjust to taking over from any predecessor administration, esp. one like the Clinton administration that was firmly entrenched for 8 years.
Bush took over on Jan. 20, 2011, so 6 months later would be in July. Not much time left before 9/11.
I fault the military and Secret Service and FBI for extremely poor planning, arming, and mindsets.
However, a footnote here. In Former FBI director Louis Freeh’s autobiographical book, he says that the most influential law professor he had at Rutgers Un. was ARTHUR KINOY. KINOY was one of the Communist Party USA’s top support attorneys for about 50 years. While his CP membership has never been documented, he was an avowed marxist and tried to set up his own party known originally as NCIPA (National Committee for Independent Political Action). I attended its founding conference and it was loaded with CPUSA and ex CPUSA reds, Democratic Socialists of America people, and assorted marxists, socialists, etc.
A three part series on Kinoy Marxist Thought can be found in the Congressional Record about 1975, put in by the late Rep. Larry MacDonald (D-Ga), in the “Extension of Remarks”.
I wonder how much influence Kinoy had on Freeh’s mindset regarding internal security versus the so-called “constitutional rights” fraudulent debate that the Party had been waging against the US internal security program since the 1930’s, but esp. since the 1950’s.
9/11 should never have happened but our post-USSR/Cold War mindset was one of weakness and pipe-dreams, instead of a hard, cold, fact-based review of the new world of the rising Red Chinese worldwide ideological offensive coupled with the rise of Al Qaeda (which Clinton ignored).
We all know the results of this stupidity and incompetence.
I’m sorry, not trying to be rude, or making a personal attack tho it’s gonna sound that way...
Just what fantasy land are you living in where you can say Bill Clinton wasn’t negligent?
He had TWO, count them TWO shots at OBL, and didn’t take either of them, so, yeah Bill Clinton WAS the reason 2,977 Americans lost their lives on 9/11.
It’s Jamie Gorelick. She was also on 9-11 commssion, placed to there (in my opinion) to make sure to absolve Clinton of culpability. She also was also on the board of Fannie Mae as as the financial system melted down around us.
It's no accident the New York Times published the piece yesterday. The official Amazon description of the New York Times writer's book is dated today, September 11, 2012
The liars are all about tearing down our country while making money doing it.
500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars [Hardcover]
Kurt Eichenwald (Author)
5.0 out of 5 stars
"...With his signature fast-paced narrative style, Eichenwald whose book, The Informant, was called one of the best nonfiction books of the decade by The New York Times Book Reviewexposes a world of secrets and lies that has remained hidden for far too long."
I guess I was unclear.
My point is that the people who were responsible were the people who planned, paid for and followed through the with murder of our people on 9/11.
Mistakes were made before of course, very big mistakes, Clinton and Bush did not carry out the murders on 9/11.
Retrospective of mistakes are a great way to add to the information going forward, we will not make the same past mistakes again (my hope anyway).
islam is evil. Their goal is to kill us, it has been since what’s his name raped his first little girl.
islam has been holding a grudge since Hagar and Ishmael first the Jews now Jews and Christians.
Decisions were made, and in retrospect they were the wrong ones.
As much as I disliked the Clinton presidency, he did not fly the planes into the World Trade Center.
The people who were responsible were islam followers.
Somebody should ask Eichenwald, "Given the admittedly vague intelligence you claim was relayed to President Bush, what action would YOU have taken? And why?"
Tag-line proven right, once again...
I do not believe for a moment that Bill Clinton set up this murder of our citizens up.
He made HUGE mistakes, that is undeniable and in retrospect it is obvious.
This is how “investigative journalism” has worked for the last decade or so. Some partisan bureaucrat or political appointee, with secret clearance, leaks selectively edited documents to an equally partisan reporter. Then stands over his shoulder while the reporter writes the story. American “journalism” is as corrupt as the government it is supposed to monitor.
If the inept Marxist Ubama can blame Bush for everything almost 4 years afte the end of his term and the lefties don’t say a word in opposition, then by that example the lefties all must blame Clinton for everything bad that happened during Bush’s first term.
It’s the rapist’s fault! Blame the Bent One! Blame Slick Willy for 9-11!
I’m certain the Ubama would agree that presidential credit begins immediately and presidential responsibility doesn’t kick in for about 3.8 years, maybe a touch longer.
Even if that were true, the Bush Administration had been in office for 8 months when 9/11 occurred, while Clinton had had 8 years to do something (including making a stronger response to the 1993 bombing) and had been offered bin Laden 3 times, passing on him each time. Bushs share of the responsibility for 9/11 is small at most. Clintons is humongous.
He should google Operation Bojinka
I was flipping through the news channels on 9/11 and saw this jack ass on MSNBC. Governor Pataki was also a guest on the same show(I think it was morning Joe). Pataki looked at Eichenwald like he wanted to put him in a head lock. He told Eichenwald that he didn’t have the slightest desire to read his book after reading the samples of it posted on the back of the books jacket. The best way to describe the expression on the Governors face is that it looked like he threw up in his mouth. What a disgrace to come out with this crap on the anniversary of 9/11.