Skip to main content

I tape Morning Joe and watch it when I can. I usually skip through much of it to real discussions. This morning I watched the interview with Kurt Eichenwald. I have to say that once again I was shocked by the lack of Republicans ability to be able to look at 9/11 and learn any leason other than to show that they (Bush) kept us safe.  Of course we all know that that is not true.  I understand and appreciate that it must be very difficult to know that as a group more could have been done. That being said we will never know if they had done more that the plot would have been stopped.

This morning Governor Pataki missed the point of Mr. Eichenwald's statements and immediately became very defensive. Mr. Eichenwald pointed out that the Bush administration, and Republicans, had been out of power for 8 years and therefore had missed all the intelligence leading up to what was a fundamental change to the threats to the United States.  He believes that when the Republicans left power the threat was from nation states and that therefore when the CIA is increasingly warning the Bush administration of Bin Laden their capability of properly assessing the threat was greatly diminished.  They just could not grasp that the threat was coming from a small group of terrorist in caves in Afganistan.  

His research showed that the Bush administration tried to tie Bin Laden to Iraq and Saddam Hussein even though he was really a secularist and completely at odds with the fundamentalist dedicated to Bin Laden. He described the Bush administration dismmissing the warnings because Bin Laden "was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein".

Pataki tried to claim all he was doing was trying to blame President Bush for not protecting America from the attack.  Of course that is self evident, the attack happened. Governor Pataki misses the point.  When any of us are unwilling to look at other factors and refuse to critically look at our own pre-conceived notions we are at risk. The Republicans have never learned this lesson.  Worse, this more than anything explains why they ignored all information from every source and invaded Irag.  It was inconceivable to them that Bin Laden could have done this horrible act without the help of the person they were perfectly willing to believe had acted, Saddam Hussein.

Instead of really evaluating the intelligence they were receiving that Saddam Hussein had not participated, they looked the other way and invaded Iraq.  The invasion was based on lies and their own unwillingness to admit they were wrong and that the world had changed. Nation states were not the emerging problem.  Small groups of terrorist cells were.  

This rigidity is what, in my opinion, caused President Bush to all but abandon the hunt for Bin Laden.  The head of the snake he cared about was Saddam Hussein not Bin Laden.  Bin Laden was not important because he did not head a state.

I have not read Mr. Eichenwald's book, but unlike Governor Pataki who says he doesn't intend to, I will.  I will read it to see what his investigation shows about how we took our eye off the ball. I will read it to hopefully learn how we assure that rigidity of thought should always be guarded against.

The Republicans will always take the approach of a noun, a verb . . . 9/11, just another political point to show how strong they are and to stir up fear rather than learn the leasons available.  Their failure overwhelms their ability to learn from their mistakes.

Finally, look at the people that Governor Romney is surrounding himself with, every one of them was there during the invasion of Irag. It is a reason to be very scared of him.

Kurt Eichenwald is showing the detailed warnings prior to 9/11, but we should take them as a very serious warnings regarding the people who surround Governor Romney.  These people have continued to dismiss the lessons of 9/11 and that should be a warning to every United States citizen.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I saw this segment this morning as well. (7+ / 0-)

    It was shocking to see supposedly intelligent beings summarily dismissing even the thought of having a conversation about 911.  Republicans just want to shut down any mention of the Bush years and the resulting consequences to this nation.

    Mika seemed to entirely miss the point Eichenwald was trying to make, although Eichenwald was not very clear in his assertions and allowed Pataki to take him somewhat off-message (a favorite GOP tactic).  

    Nice diary.  

    •  Joe (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MKSinSA, KayCeSF, ParkRanger

      I also thought she was not up to the interview. I wonder if having spent so much time at the World Trade Center that day and the following days has prevented her from looking at the whole story. It may just be painful.

      Interesting that Joe wasn't on the set for this.

      •  "Interesting that Joe wasn't on the set for this." (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Deep Texan, ParkRanger, MKSinSA

        My immediate attention went to his "empty chair."  

        Then when this interview was over, he came swooping in.   That was very telling to me.  He can't handle the conversation. Mika?  She can't discuss anything beyond small-talk.

        I would rather spend my life searching for truth than live a single day within the comfort of a lie. ~ John Victor Ramses

        by KayCeSF on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 11:14:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  They Didn't Anticipate Such A Large Scale Attack.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan

    A smaller one would have sufficed.  That would have justified their illegal invasion of oil rich Iraq.  The privatization of the war was low hanging fruit, & Republicans plucked it.

    And no one profited more from Iraq than Dick Cheney & his war mongering company....KBR.  What's Cheney complaining about?  He got his money out of the deal.  

  •  Pataki is a shrewd weasel...but still a weasel. (0+ / 0-)

    His political skills should not be underestimated; I suspect he's biding his time until 2016 to take his own shot at the White House.

    But this merely confirms what those of us in New York State already know: Pataki is a mendacious asshole.

    •  Pataki (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan

      I live in Texas so you are talking to Noah about asshole Governors. I mean really, Bush & Perry.

      What surprised me was how he immediately went into defensive mode protecting Bush.  I would think New Yorkers were not in favor of invading Iraq.

      •  Pataki's from Hudson Valley, which... (0+ / 0-)

        means his mindset is pretty much the same as folks in NY City when it comes to the Iraq fiasco. And despite New York City's reputation as a liberal bastion, I suspect that a very large majority of city residents are still okay with the invasion of Iraq, so traumatized and so eager for vengeance were they in the aftermath of the destruction of the WTC. Invading the wrong country was acceptable as long as someone somewhere was getting killed for 9/11.

        Also, it's a fundamental rule for Republicans who want to advance in the party: you have to fall on your sword and insist that invading Iraq was a great idea, so invested are the wing nuts and teabaggers in their alternative history of the world.

  •  who says "I won't read your book" while casting (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KayCeSF, Deep Texan

    aspersions on it?  Pataki, that's who.  

    that was the dumbest thing I've heard in awhile.

    This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

    by mallyroyal on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 10:27:52 AM PDT

  •  BUSH WAS WARNED EARLY IN HIS ADMINISTRATION (0+ / 0-)

    I remember reading about the strenuous effort the the outgoing Clinton administration made to warn the new administration about the extremely serious terrorist threat we faced. And this happened at the very beginning of the administration. Sandy Berger made a point of warning Condi and the Hart Rudman Commission report released in January also made this crystal clear. The Gore Commission had warned about lax airport security. Hart and Rudman personally briefed Rice, Powell, and Rumsfeld. Clinton personally warned Bush during the transition. As Clinton was leaving office the FBI reported that it was definitely Al Quaeda that had attacked the USS Cole. He had no time to take action but the Bush administration had more than enough time to act against Bin Laden.

    Richard Clarke, who had worked for both Bush I and Clinton as top adviser on counter-terrorism, repeatedly warned Condi. He was effectively demoted by being denied the Cabinet access he had under previous administrations. The Clinton Cabinet advisers had anti-terrorism meetings nearly weekly. Bush put Cheney in charge of anti-terrorism. He held zero meetings of high level officials in charge of anti terrorism until right before 9-11 despite the fact that Clarke had been asking for a Cabinet-level meeting since January.

    The Bush administration was so committed to being the anti-Clintons as well as to going after Saddam that they refused to believe the strong evidence that was repeatedly given to them. That they gave been given a pass on thier criminal negligence and hubris is disgusting but not surprising given how hard the mainstream media works to stick to a favored storyline. They talk as if giving a speech while standing on a pile of rubble with a megaphone outweighs the fact that Bush had refused to act to alert airports, etc. of the serious threats we were facing.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site