April 12, 2004
#204 - The Unexamined Life

From today's New York Times editorial page: "The Silent President."

President Bush was asked, during a very brief session with reporters yesterday, about the now-famous Aug. 6, 2001, memo he received on domestic terrorism. He responded with the familiar White House complaint about lack of specificity in the C.I.A.'s warnings — although the memo mentioned a plot, possibly involving hijacked planes and New York City. The most striking thing about the president's comment, however, was his bottom line: that he did everything he could. Over the last few weeks we have heard lawmakers and officials from two administrations talk about their feelings of responsibility, about how they compulsively re-examine the events leading up to 9/ll, asking themselves whether they could have done anything to avert the terrible disaster that day. It is beginning to seem that the only person free of that kind of self-examination is the man who was chief executive when the attacks occurred.

No reasonable American blames Mr. Bush for the terrorist attacks, but that's a long way from thinking there was no other conceivable action he could have taken to prevent them. He could, for instance, have left his vacation in Texas after receiving that briefing memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." and rushed back to the White House, assembled all his top advisers and demanded to know what, in particular, was being done to screen airline passengers to make sure people who fit the airlines' threat profiles were being prevented from boarding American planes. Even that sort of prescient response would probably have been too little to head off the disaster. But those what-if questions should haunt the president as they haunt the nation. In all probability, they do and it is only the demands of his re-election campaign that are guiding Mr. Bush's public stance of utter, uncomplicated self-righteousness.

Comments

Wow, it's finally happened. I feel so bad for the President that I'm thinking maybe he's not so bad, maybe he's doing the best anyone could, maybe he deserves reelection.

Posted by: Eric on April 12, 2004 09:20 AM

Bush was in office a total of 8.5 months when this tragedy occurred, what was the idiot doing that was in there for the previous 8 years?

Posted by: Susan on April 12, 2004 10:26 AM

I have a hard time believing Georgie used the word specificity. Are you sure he didn't say "specificness?"

Posted by: Carmen on April 12, 2004 02:18 PM

how many threats does the government/white house receive/day. To expect that each and every threat is acted upon as if it is a ceartinty is unrealistic, and the mark of someone who is reaching for one more thing to throw at President Bush.

Posted by: dave on April 13, 2004 01:00 AM

I don't blame Bush for not stopping the 9/11 attacks. I do blame him for not being able to admit - or, apparently, even conceive of the idea - that he might have been able to do more. His reluctance in being forthcoming with the 9/11 Commission shows that he values re-election more than getting to the truth about one of this country's worst tragedies. In essence, he'd rather win re-election than make a positive contribution to our understanding of the events and how we might reshape our intelligence apparatus to prevent similar events in the future.

Posted by: Rhonda on April 13, 2004 08:28 AM

I think this issue is getting too much press, to the point of gaining sympathy for someone who has many greater weak points than this one. Think of how many times someone says "I'm going to kill..." and nothing happens. Are we going to burn resources to chase down everyone who says something foolish? It's too bad, because obviously not everyone was crying wolf, but as I said, I don't think this is the point to keep harping on when trying to get Bush out of office.

Posted by: Dave on April 13, 2004 08:41 AM