Finally.

[southsider2k5]

From Dennis Byrne in yesterdays Trib

 

Through all of last week's finger-pointing over how "government" failed to prevent 9/11, there was little credible discussion about what would actually have stopped the attacks.

 

If the diplomatic and military actions by both the Bush and Clinton administrations were insufficient, as the commission studying the terrorist attacks concluded, then what would have been sufficient? If Richard Clarke, the fatuous opportunist and former anti-terrorist czar, was so certain that everyone else (except himself, that is) blew it, then what was his plan? When infrequently asked, his answers were incoherent, incomplete, impractical or evasive.

 

For the sake of ending this national circus, let's assume that the administrations knew that Arab terrorists were planning to fly airliners into high-visibility targets. So just what would the second-guessers have done if they were in George Bush's or Bill Clinton's shoes? Would they have instituted the same airport security and military measures that we have today, such as stopping everyone with a one-way ticket, checking people's shoes and committing other invasions of "privacy"? In the summer of massive airport delays, would they have faced the heat for causing even longer lines and greater waits? Or would they, like they do today, have ridiculed, criticized or even condemned the measures?

 

Would those who today complain about the constitutional affronts posed by the Patriot Act and other measures have instituted such steps based only on the warnings of intelligence operatives? Would the public have tolerated them? Would they have been for tougher action against people here illegally? Knowing that the terrorists were Arab, would they have the courage to withstand charges of racial profiling while searching for them?

 

If the "government" knew that the terrorists planned to fly planes into the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, would today's critics of past actions have ordered all flights grounded that day and the World Trade Center evacuated? If the "government" had implemented such unprecedented action, thereby preventing the attacks, would todays second-guessers have said back then that the failure of anything to happen was proof that our president was not just stupid and a cowboy, but also delusional? And if those measures had only postponed the attack until, say, 10/11, would today's carpers, in President Bush's shoes, have had the courage to impose another round of tough security measures for that day? And again and again, until the measures failed, which was the only way to prove that the measures were needed?

 

Would those who today decry America's "unilateralist" military actions have instituted such undertakings before 9/11 against the ruling Taliban in Afghanistan on the say-so of intelligence experts that a nasty man there was planning the attacks? Or would they, as they do today, insist that we first build an "international coalition?" How long would they have waited to get the United Nations, France and Germany on board, before having America act on its own? A month? Six months? A year?

 

How many of the critics who say that President Bush is being too aggressive today are simultaneously accusing him of not being aggressive enough before 9/11? How many of those who insist that President Clinton didn't do enough would have been the first to accuse him, if he had been more aggressive, of trying to "wag the dog" to deflect attention from his impeachment?

 

Sure, government failed. But how could it have succeeded? All the yapping that we hear today about violations of our civil liberties, the "reckless cowboy" Bush and American jingoism are nothing to the hysterics that we would have heard if government had imposed the steps necessary to stop the original 9/11. Especially when those steps were based on nothing more than the conclusions of government intelligence services. If Democrats are to make the Bush "failures" a part of their campaign, then they and their presumptive nominee, Sen. John Kerry, must explain what they would have done to stop the terrorists.

 

Yet scapegoating continues in high gear. For the past week, Americans have been subjected to politics, journalism and punditry at its worst and most simple-minded. Gnarling partisans and a media either unwilling or incapable of asking the right questions have all positioned themselves on top of Mt. Know-it-all, as if being able to pin blame on someone really answers the most important questions. As we glare at each other across the political chasm, we have removed our focus from defeating our common enemy. Just as the enemy would plan it.

[mreye]

Very good read. Thanks, Mike!

[cwsox]

Dennis Byrne has been a right wing shill since he got his columnist job.

 

If you are going to read the Trib might I suggest the news stories as well as selected columnists.

[mreye]

Dennis Byrne has been a right wing shill since he got his columnist job.

 

If you are going to read the Trib might I suggest the news stories as well as selected columnists.

You mean the slanted "news"?

[southsider2k5]

Dennis Byrne has been a right wing shill since he got his columnist job.

 

If you are going to read the Trib might I suggest the news stories as well as selected columnists.

I read the Trib from cover to cover everyday, thank you very much. I picked this article because this was the first columnist I have seen that didn't have his or her head planted so firmly up their ass, as to realize this was more than a partisian occurance. If Molly Ivans had the sense to write the samething, I would have posted it as well.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

That article didn't seem to be bipartisan but more right wing.

 

As for what I would have done as a critic of Bush/Clinton and 9/11:

 

I wouldn't have signed into existence executive order W199I like Clinton and Bush did. It effectively stopped FBI investigation into possible terrorist threats.

 

This author doesn't take into account a lot of the different things we already knew:

1) hijacking of airplanes to be used as bombs against the WTC, CIA Headquarters, White House and Pentagon was common knowledge since the early 90s.

 

2) http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html Check out the articles of FBI agents complaining about roadblocks to even investigating the bin Laden family and possible terrorist threats in the US due to the FBI blocking them.

 

3) Ashcroft stopped flying commercial flights during the summer of 2001, citing an acute security risk as the reason.

 

4) Mayor of San Francisco Willie Brown was set to fly into New York on the morning of September 11. However, he got a call from what he described as his 'airport security' late September 10th advising against flying due to a security threat. Brown awoke on September 11th to scenes of the WTC on fire and obviously his flight was cancelled. Who exactly warned Mayor Willie Brown and why didn't the people on the hijacked planes get the same warning? Brown refuses to comment any further on the subject.

 

There is a lot of stuff related to 9/11 than the shills of the right and left wing are not telling. At best, it was a huge intelligence failure and grand f***up. At worst, it was a calculated plan.

[mreye]

There is a lot of stuff related to 9/11 than the shills of the right and left wing are not telling.  At best, it was a huge intelligence failure and grand f***up.  At worst, it was a calculated plan.

I can't disagree with that.

[Queen Prawn]

There is a lot of stuff related to 9/11 than the shills of the right and left wing are not telling.  At best, it was a huge intelligence failure and grand f***up.  At worst, it was a calculated plan.

Chilling and accurate.

[IlliniBob72]

Dennis Byrne has been a right wing shill since he got his columnist job.

 

If you are going to read the Trib might I suggest the news stories as well as selected columnists.

What are you talking about? That column is talking about both Clinton's and Bush's administrations, making the same points for each. There is no right or left wing slant to that story. The only reason you would think so is that it doesn't villify your nemesis GWB.