Subject: Taking responsibility for 9-11
Bart,
Bushie is unable to understand why people
think he should take any sort of personal responsibility for 9/11.
Should he? After all, it was the
terrorists who did it! Let's examine some analogies...
Let's say that I'm your bodyguard.
You and I are walking through New York City, in a good area, when we are
suddenly attacked by a larger group of
muggers. I fight back but am overwhelmed, and you are injured and
robbed.
Since you hired me to prevent such an attack,
I must take personal responsibility -- even though the muggers carried
out the attack and I had done everything
I could to prevent it.
Now let's look at a much closer analogy.
I'm still your bodyguard and we still walk through New York. I tell
you
to take a short cut through a bad part
of town, even though it's obvious that two people dressed like we are,
looking like we do, will be targets.
When a group of muggers attacks, I jump out of the way, hide in a doorway,
and try to look up what to do in my bodyguard
handbook. In the meantime, the muggers injure and rob you.
In this case I'm not just responsible,
I'm criminally negligent.
And yet, the Bush administration's actions
regarding 9/11 fit the second analogy well. They knew--as did the
entire thinking world--that we were in
a bad area, having received a lot of "chatter" about al Qaeda threats.
They increased pressure on the Taliban,
threatening them, even though they knew al Qaeda controlled the Taliban.
When al Qaeda attacked, they did nothing
at all to help New York -- no jet fighters to defend the city (or Washington,
for that matter) -- while Bush read his
manual
(called Cheney), and ran and hid.
Personal responsibility for 9/11?
Bush was criminally negligent, and should be prosecuted.
Hell, even Reagan was more willing to take
responsibility.
Remember when the Marines were attacked
in Lebanon,
and at least Reagan admitted that it happened
on his watch?
Russ