I have to agree with Atrios (quote somewhat reformatted):
I’ve never quite been able figure out why the image of the burning twin towers is seen by Republicans as something in their favor. In my universe the timeline goes something like this:
- Jan 20, 2001
- Bush Inaugurated
- Jan 25, 2001
- Richard Clarke sends Condi Rice memo, warning about al Qaeda. Rice does nothing.
- August 6, 2001
- Bush gets memo titled “Bin Laden Determined to strike in US.” Bush responds by telling the briefer, “All right. You’ve covered your ass, now.” Then does nothing.
- September 11, 2001
- Bin Laden strikes in US.
I would add the transition-team briefing, before Bush was inaugurated, when outgoing Clinton Administration officials warned the incoming Bush team about the danger posed by al Qaeda. Naturally, the Bush people ignored the warnings. If they hadn’t, they might not have this great issue of 9/11 to beat Democrats over the head.
Republican failures show we need more Republicans? Maybe Karl Rove was a genius, after all.
B. Moore | 16-Jul-08 at 1:52 am | Permalink
my friend:
1) hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20. i remember hearing same thing about pre-warnings of Pearl Harbor/japs attacking and FDR deliberately waiting for same so he could claim that the japs fired first…
2) part i don’t get is what old sammy bin laden had about destroying a building. seems like a waste of effort to be so focused on ‘just’ a building. what the world trade center ever do to him that he had such a fixation/motivation on destroying a building?
there are other more significant more visible targets he could have picked…
3) were reports to white house SPECIFIC DATE/TIME/EVENT or just generic chain jerking?