NYT Op/Ed on 9/11: 'The Deafness Before the Storm'
"goes into teeth-grinding detail about how the Bush administration had even more advance notice about Osama Bin Laden's attack than we previously realized." Summary
: significantly more negligence than has been disclosed.
posted by stbalbach
on Sep 11, 2012 -
Michael Moore rips Bush yet another one.
While making Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore interviewed Porter Goss, President Bush's as-yet-to-be-approved nominee for head of the CIA. In the interview, Porter Goss said he wasn't qualified to even be in the CIA anymore, much less run it.
"It is true I was a case officer, clandestine services officer, and yes, I do understand the core mission of the business. But I couldn't get a job with the CIA today. I am not qualified. I don't have the language skills. You know my language skills were romance languages and stuff. We're looking for Arabists today. I don't have the cultural background probably, and I certainly don't have the technical skills, as my children remind me every day. "Daddy, Daddy, you gotta get better on your computer." And so the things you need to have, I don't have."
The video is available here
posted by insomnia_lj
on Aug 12, 2004 -
FORMER WHITE HOUSE TERRORISM ADVISOR: BUSH ADMIN WAS DISCUSSING BOMBING IRAQ FOR 9/11 DESPITE KNOWING AL QAEDA WAS TO BLAME
Former White House terrorism advisor Richard Clarke tells Lesley Stahl that on September 11, 2001 and the day after - when it was clear Al Qaeda had carried out the terrorist attacks - the Bush administration was considering bombing Iraq in retaliation. Clarke's exclusive interview will be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday March 21 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.
Clarke was surprised that the attention of administration officials was turning toward Iraq when he expected the focus to be on Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. "They were talking about Iraq on 9/11. They were talking about it on 9/12," says Clarke
posted by Postroad
on Mar 19, 2004 -
John Dean's analysis of the administrations case for War.
"What I found, in critically examining Bush's evidence, is not pretty. The African uranium matter is merely indicative of larger problems, and troubling questions of potential and widespread criminality when taking the nation to war. It appears that not only the Niger uranium hoax, but most everything else that Bush said about Saddam Hussein's weapons was false, fabricated, exaggerated, or phony."
posted by thedailygrowl
on Jul 18, 2003 -
George Bush's Article in NYTIMES.
I was surprised to see an article by the prez on nytimes.com. We are used to presidents communicating through TV- but there the speech is picked up by all major channels in that case. It seems odd to see a sitting president use one
newspaper to put forward a viewpoint. Perhaps, Al Gore's articles in the same space spurred dubya. Oh, by the way, what did you think of the story? Is this the work of a speechwriter or do you think it is genuine? Did everyone notice the absence of the word Iraq in this article?
(The customary apology for the nytimes post applies. I believe you can still register as metafilter, metafilter.)
posted by SandeepKrishnamurthy
on Sep 11, 2002 -
The Associated Press
has written a summary of the Bush Administration's curtailment of civil liberties. This appears to an unbiased and factual catalog of the changes 9/11 has wrought on our justice system. It would appear that the Law and Order wing of the GOP has spanked the Libertarian
wing but good. Let the Eagle Soar!
posted by pejamo
on Sep 6, 2002 -
Hitting the trifecta.
A tasteless joke and a morbid lie from the only person to actually benefit from Sep. 11. Is political advantage really worth this kind of crass lying? A toast to the restoration of honor and dignity to the White House and our appreciation that the "adults" are now in charge! I'm off to buy the new Ann Thrax book to bolster my right wing
posted by nofundy
on Jun 28, 2002 -
The Bush 9/11 Scandal for Dummies:
Ready to do some 9/11 conspiracy debunking? Read this and lets get some old time MeFi discussion going. It's all there, from the (s)election of Bush as president to the "pre-planning" of the American Patriot Act. As Weiner describes the culprits as:
. . .the HardRight began serious planning for a 2000 electoral victory -- and then implementation of a HardRight agenda, and the destruction of a liberal opposition -- a year or two after Clinton's 1996 victory. (The impeachment of Clinton was a key ingredient to sully Democrat opposition.) The GOP HardRight leaders decided early to select George W. Bush, a none-too-bright and easily malleable young man with the right name and pedigree. They ran into a speed-bump when John McCain began to take off in the public imagination, and so with dirty tricks they wrecked his campaign in the South and elsewhere, and continued on their merry course.
posted by crasspastor
on Jun 2, 2002 -
George Rap Bush?
Turn him over. Turn him over. Turn his cohorts over. Turn any hostage they hold over. Destroy all the terrorist camps. There's no need to negotiate. There's no discussion. I told them exactly what they need to do. And there's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty. Turn him over.
posted by Carol Anne
on Oct 14, 2001 -
to get Bush to condemn the statements of Falwell and Robertson. Too much? Not sure, but I signed it anyway. Over 10,000 sigs so far.
posted by skallas
on Sep 18, 2001 -
Bush readies military--calls up 50 thousand reserves
Well that will take care of the job market. But just what is it they are to do? One suggestion is that they will stay in the U.S. to ensure our safety. Isn't that called a garrison state? And Carnivore now installed at Hotmail and just about all oter places. But Bush had warned us early on that sometimes you have to give up freedoms, even in a democracy.
posted by Postroad
on Sep 14, 2001 -
Bush may have been target
I don't mean to be out of line but I am a bit suspicious when Bush flees, then when a number of media folks question his flight from leadership position he states that his office knew of possible threat to White House. Asked, then, what info they had had so early in the events taking plalce, there is no answer given by the White House.
To make matters even odder, we learn that the White House might be under threat but Chaney and Rice remained there.
Againb, I am totally willing to give Bush the benfit of doubt. But a leader who flees for security. Couldn't have gone to Dick Gebhart's digs? Who would have thought to bomb that place.
posted by Postroad
on Sep 12, 2001 -