 |
         |
Napping On The Job
The Public Record of George W. Bush, pre-Sept. 11
By Alan Bisbort
|
|
Napping On The Job
The Public Record of George W. Bush, pre-Sept. 11
By Alan Bisbort
May 23, 2002 -- Hartford (APJP) -- Even if hindsight is 20/20, it's as clear as a summer day in Crawford, Texas that George W. Bush was driving completely blind in the month before the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. And now that it has been proven beyond any doubt that the Bush Team lied to the American people last week about not having advance notice of hijacked-planes-as-missiles by al Qaeda operatives, it is time to examine the evidence that is incontestably on the record.
To wit: a memo dated August 6, 2001 that was cited in the Washington Post and in this week's Newsweek. The memo sent to Team Bush, snoozing blissfully at Crawford Central, warned of a "really spectacular" imminent terror attack to be conducted on American soil.
Through his staff-flacks, Bush has insisted that he took all necessary measures to prevent any such attack occurring in the five weeks from the time the memo arrived until the epoch-changing event of September 11, 2001. This spin-there's no other word for it, as it's not based in reality-has, for the past week, been parroted obediently by the pack of right wing lapdog pundits who've been allowed to dominate the debate since it was revealed to the American people that, as Rupert Murdoch's New York Post subtly and aptly put it, "BUSH KNEW."
Taking the President at his word, I went back and examined every issue of Time and Newsweek from August 6 through September 10, 2001-and I would warrant that the same pattern would be seen were one to pore over daily editions of, say, the New York Times and the Washington Post. I did not see a single story on, or even a passing reference to, domestic terrorism, fear of bioterrorism, extra vigilance at America's airports or even the slightest hint that anyone on Bush's staff, from Colin Powell to John Ashcroft to Rove, Card, Rice and Cheney gave even a nod, wave or shoulder-shrug to the possibility of a domestic terrorist attack.
They may insist that all of their "preparedness" was occurring in secret, behind the scenes, as it were (don't want to tip the old hand to wily evildoers like Osama and Saddam, now, do we?), but a complete lack of forewarning has been remarked upon by the pilots association, the air traffic controllers, American business travelers, and even the now sainted mayor of New York, Rudolph Giuliani (who, instead of trying to prop up Bush, as he's doing, should stand alongside the people of his wounded city, rightfully demanding answers). My point: even if they had advanced knowledge and were working behind the scenes-and, believe me, I'm bending over backwards to allow them this-they did not share the information with THE VERY PEOPLE WHO WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE BEST POSITION TO SAVE AMERICAN LIVES.
I examined these magazines, in part, out of native curiosity. I did it also, in part, because I was given this challenge by one of my readers: "To my knowledge, no one has yet asked or answered the question: 'What were Bush and Cheney doing during that month that they regarded as more important than dealing with and passing along a terrorist threat that wound up costing more than 3,000 lives in the first attack upon the soil of our sovereign nation? Were they gerrymandering environmental laws to help their cronies make money? Were they meeting with Enron execs so that these soiled crooks could set energy policy? Were they unilaterally withdrawing from the Kyoto accords so that their cronies in industry wouldn't have to comply?
Were they announcing that we would no longer be observing the ABM accords that were still in force? What were these two fellows, still so highly regarded by the American public for their strength of character, doing during that crucial month while the al-Qaeda suicide hijackers were making their final plans? Just what did Bush's and Cheney's appointment books look like while bin Laden was getting ready to export hell on earth to New York City?"
This is really not too difficult to find out, and if you don't believe me, try it for yourself. Here's how I did it: I walked two blocks to my local public library. I pulled the back issues of these news magazines off the shelf. I sat at a table and kept a ledger as I perused them. (Oh man, wait until Ashcroft finds out how subversive a public library can be!). And this is what I found, week by blissfully ignorant week, in America's two most widely read news magazines:
August 6, 2001
Time:
Newsweek:
August 13, 2002
Time:
Newsweek:
August 20, 2002
Time:
Newsweek:
August 27, 2002
Time:
Newsweek:
September 3, 2002
Time:
Newsweek:
September 10, 2002
Time:
Newsweek:
And there you have it. That's all there is. We, of course, all know what led the next week's issues of both magazines, but it is now impossible to draw any other conclusions than this overridingly obvious one: this 5-week period of what will, in hindsight, be regarded as one of the most important in U.S. history offers public "real time" and crystal clear documentation of appalling laziness and abject failure, from the White House all the way down to the White House press corps.
Attorney General John Ashcroft, of course, shares some of the blame. As has been noted in the Guardian -- one has to consult the London newspapers to find the full story --
"[Ashcroft] has accused his critics of undermining the fight
against terrorism. But it is becoming clear that before
September 11 he had little interest in counter-terrorism, and
diverted resources from measures to prevent terrorism towards
those aimed at more traditional targets, such as drugs and
child pornography....On September 10 last year, the last day of
what is now seen as a bygone age of innocence, Mr Ashcroft sent
a request for budget increases to the White House. It covered
68 programmes, none of them related to counter-terrorism. He
also sent a memorandum to his heads of departments, stating
his seven priorities. Counter-terrorism was not on the list.
He turned down an FBI request for hundreds more agents to be
assigned to tracking terrorist threats....Nevertheless, he
began using a chartered private jet to travel around the
country, rather than take commercial airliners as Ms Reno had
done. A justice department spokesman said this was done as a
result of an FBI 'threat assessment' on Mr Ashcroft, but
insisted that the assessment was not specifically linked to
al-Qaeda."
However, since Bush is the man at the top, the buck has to stop with him-as eager as he is to make the buck stop elsewhere, preferably with Clinton. The record states, clear as a Texas cow pie, that George W. Bush was a failure and the sagging approval ratings prior to September 11 were an indication that Americans were beginning to pick up on this. And this is the same record of failure and laziness that the Bush Team now wants to stand on. This is the record that the Democrats should now make them fall on. It is time to wake up, America, even if the president is still napping.
Alan Bisbort is a columnist for the Hartford Advocate and the author, most recently, of "Famous Last Words: Apt Observations, Pleas, Curses, Benedictions, Sour Notes, Bons Mots, and Insights from People on the Brink of Departure" (Pomegranate).
Copyright © 2002, Bryan Zepp Jamieson.