Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Krauthammer is right on this call. Anyone who knows anything about Pearl Harbor couldn't even place all the blame on Kimmel and Short. Too many were deserving of partial blame to count. Even if they did scramble aircraft after seeing the huge radar blip from the northeast the Japanese tally would have been extremely impressive.

Our 'government' failed us on 9-11-01. And since 'our' government is 'by-the-people', we all share a portion of the blame.

1 posted on 04/03/2004 3:51:25 AM PST by johnny7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: All

2 posted on 04/03/2004 3:52:29 AM PST by Support Free Republic (If Woody had gone straight to the police, this would never have happened!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: johnny7
I've got my beefs with Bush, but 09/11 isn't one of them. The Clinton administration, our nation's democrat leadership and our national security agencies are a different story.

The Clinton administration could have had Laden three times and took a pass. In eight years they did little else but implement cosmetic fixes to the terrorist threat. Oh yes, and they blamed George Bush after the fact. Very effective. NOT! The Clinton administration and everything associated with it smells like rotten eggs.

As for our national security agencies, there are tens of thousands of agents, not a one of which could extrapolate a possible threat involving aircraft and tall buildings. Worse yet, they didn't even have a contingency plan for attack from the air in our major cities, no not even in the capital. Now there's a real think-tank for ya.

Then there's the nation's leading Democrats who spent the first eight months of the Bush Presidency stalling and denying Bush appointments, some of which were to the national security arena. When they blame Bush for not hitting the road running, they conveniently forget to metion that they were the precise reason he couldn't.
3 posted on 04/03/2004 4:01:15 AM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: johnny7
In addition, I should have mentioned that due to the democrat's stonewalling on Bush appointees, guess who was still in charge of the security agencies? Yep, Clinton's goons and his agenda were still in play for the most part.

Now, who do we blame? I wonder...
4 posted on 04/03/2004 4:03:19 AM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: All
Go here and click on: Phony Apology (washingtonpost.com)

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Richard+Clarke+Owes+President+Bush+An+Apology



The most telling remark Clarke made in the entire hearing was one that did not make the cover of Newsweek.

Former senator Slade Gorton: "Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25th of 2001 . . . had all been adopted say on January 26th, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?"

Clarke: "No."

Thus, doing everything demanded by the most hawkish, most prescient, most brilliant, most heroic, most swaggering anti-terrorism chief in American history -- i.e. Clarke, in his own mind -- would not have prevented Sept. 11. Why, then, should the administration apologize?

5 posted on 04/03/2004 4:04:32 AM PST by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: johnny7
If somehow Bin Laden had been captured does anyone in their right mind think it would have changed anything? Radical Islam would have gone right ahead with something much worse. Besides, the second in command guy (can't spell his name), is acknowledged to be the mastermind behind 9/11. And, to my knowledge, no one knew about him.

9/11 remains the fault of the entire world of Islam.
9 posted on 04/03/2004 4:34:27 AM PST by tkathy (nihilism: absolute destructiveness toward the world at large and oneself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: johnny7
Exactly. Freepers excluded of course, this nation elected Clinton and did not hold him accountable for an effective response, even after the 93 WTC bombings, the embassies, etc. It just wasn't on the radar.

We all went on our merry way. I remember my mother saying to me after the Cole, "you know, one day the terrorists have are going to blow up something so big we will have to take them seriously. People have to suffer before they will do something. But its coming, and they are going to be totally surprised."

She was always convinced there was going to be some big bombing in Manhattan, especially after the first bombing.
11 posted on 04/03/2004 4:38:56 AM PST by I still care (Many people say they want to serve God; but only as an advisor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: johnny7
Clarke's "apology" reminded me of Clinton going to Africa to "apologize" for slavery and colonialism. In fact, Clinton went around "apologizing" for every sin under the sun--except his own.
13 posted on 04/03/2004 4:50:46 AM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: johnny7
Thanks for alerting us to this column.

This great op-ed column also in Boulder News

Krauthammer: What a sorry apology

WASHINGTON — The New York Times swooned. Newsweek put it on its cover. Commentators everywhere expressed sorrowful dismay that Bush had not done it long ago.

Indeed, one has to admire it — the most cynical and brilliantly delivered apology in recent memory: Richard Clarke using the nationally televised Sept. 11 commission hearings to address the families of the victims. "Your government failed you, those entrusted with protecting you failed you and I failed you."

Many were moved. I was not. For two reasons. First, the climactic confession "I failed you" — the one that packed the emotional punch — was entirely disingenuous. Clarke did the mea culpa then spent the next 2 1/2 hours of testimony — as he did on every talk show known to man and in the 300 pages of his book — demonstrating how everyone else except Richard Clarke had failed. And they failed because the stubborn, ignorant, ideologically blinkered, poll-driven knaves and fools he had been heroically fighting against in government would not listen to him.

Message: They failed you.

Second, by blaming the government for the deaths of their loved ones, Clarke deftly endorsed the grotesque moral inversion by which those who died on Sept. 11 are victims of ... George Bush. This is about as morally obscene as the implication (made by, among others, the irrepressible Howard Dean) that those who died in the Madrid bombings were also victims of George Bush.

This is false. They were all victims of al-Qaida and al Qaida alone.

Clinton did not apologize for Oklahoma City. Reagan did not apologize for the Beirut bombing. FDR did not apologize for Pearl Harbor. George Bush owes no apology. If an apology is owed, it is owed to the entire country and not just the families, and it is owed by the murderers who planned and carried out Sept. 11.

The most telling remark Clarke made in the entire hearing was one that did not make the cover of Newsweek.

SEN. SLADE GORTON: "Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25th of 2001 ... had all been adopted say on January 26th, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?"

CLARKE: "No."

Thus, doing everything demanded by the most hawkish, most prescient, most brilliant, most heroic, most swaggering antiterrorism chief in American history — i.e. Clarke, in his own mind — would not have prevented Sept. 11. Why then should the administration apologize?

What exactly was the failure? What was Bush supposed to do in order to prevent Sept. 11? Invade Afghanistan? Clarke has expressed outrage at Bush's pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. So: Bush deserves excoriation for pre-emptively invading Iraq based on massive, universally accepted intelligence of its weapons, to say nothing of its hostility and virulence; and simultaneously, Bush deserves excoriation for not pre-emptively attacking Afghanistan on the basis of ... what? Increased terrorist chatter in the summer of 2001?

At the hearing, Clarke was particularly brilliant in playing to the gallery, mainly to the families in the gallery. By some strange cultural transmutation, the families — or more accurately, a small number of politically active families — have claimed, and been ceded, special status in the war on terrorism.

Surely they deserve our sympathy and our care. And they have received an extraordinary, indeed unprecedented, outpouring of both from the public and from the government. But some families go much further, and claim the moral high ground in judging the war on terror and how it is to be waged.

On what grounds? Did the Pearl Harbor families enjoy special status in critiquing FDR's decisions in World War II? The Oklahoma City families were denied any special status at all — they never even got compensation of the sort the Sept. 11 families received.

Just this week the widow of Daniel Pearl was denied a claim for similar government compensation, on the grounds that, while Pearl was surely a victim of the war on terror — and, in fact, was engaged in it by pursuing the truth about those waging war against us — he happened to die on a date other than Sept. 11.

Clarke's clever pseudo-apology — we failed, meaning, they failed — played perfectly to the families in the gallery, who applauded and warmly embraced the very man who for 12 years was the U.S. government official most responsible for preventing a Sept. 11. A neat trick.


14 posted on 04/03/2004 5:52:43 AM PST by syriacus (2001: The Daschle-Schumer Gang obstructed Bush's attempts to organize his administration -->9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson