This is idiotic. Why? Didn't the terrorists attack on 9/11? Of course they did. It is the terrorist's job and objective to attack us. They accomplished their task. They are happy. They are certainly not sorry. So why would the terrorists apologize?
By contrast, our government's job is to serve and protect the American citizens who elect them. President Bush is the head of the government. He is the one ultimately responsible for anything and everything that transpires under him. If he or someone who reports to him failed to protect America, he should apologize to the American people and admit that mistake.
But instead we get a President who spent a minute stumbling and bumbling and studdering trying to recall a mistake. And now, anyone who has or continues to criticize Bush over any of character failings is a Bush-basher or a Bush-hater that is providing aid and comfort to the enemy. Indeed, all Americans should stand behind Bush in a show of absolute strength and unity against the terrorists.
As a reader, you are probably wondering what this has the Republicans being to blame for 9/11. Perhaps you do not recall the 1990s. You know, the Clinton Administration?
Back then, the Republicans were the opposition party. Back then, dissent was not only democratic but imperative to keep the President on his toes. And we moved through the 1990's the opposition party ratched up its attacks against the President. They even tried to remove him from power. All the while, the nation was suffering terrorist attacks by Al-Queda and homegrown reich-wing terrorists.
- World Trade Center Bombing.
- Haitan Intervention.
- Korean Crisis.
- Oklahoma City Bombing
- Atlanta Bombing.
- Kenyan and Tanzania Embassies.
- Iraq Bombings.
- Kosovo War.
- Millenium plots.
- U.S.S. Cole.
During any of these incidents, whether they were terroristic or otherwise, did the Republicans stand behind Clinton as a show of absolute strength and unity against the terrorists and our enemies? No. They accused Clinton of responding to these crisises in order to bolster his own political fortunes. In fact, they did the opposite. The created a political climate (impeachment and investigations) that made it impossible for Clinton to rally support for an all out attack against Al-Queda. The Republicans weakened America in the years leading up to 9/11.
They opposed Clinton at every turn. And then when the Republicans get control of the entire government for eight months prior to 9/11, they did nothing about terrorism.
So yes, the Republicans are entirely responsible for 9/11.
They are also responsible for every attack and American death since then. For you see, then wanted 9/11. 9/11 woke America up but at the same time blinded them. When tragedy strikes Americans are patriots and want to help their government. This is a good and noble thing. But their government was counting on that and exploited it for all it was worth. The Republicans used 9/11 as a catalyst for their plans in Iraq. They wanted to settle old scores against Saddam and provide an American outpost in the Middle East. They wanted money. They wanted oil.
But after I have thought all of this, I still could not get myself past one thought: surely the military planners and Bush Administration officials knew it would take a long time for an Arab country to embrace democracy. Surely they knew that our presence would attract jihadists wanting to kill Americans. Surely they knew that Iraq, have no national identity of its own, may indeed break down into civil war and uprisings. Surely they knew that we would need more troops and more money than we had to secure Iraq.
So if they knew all of that, why in God's name would they rush head long into war with no plan for the aftermath?
It is because the neocon's plan all along was to instigate a wider, regional conflagration that would involve Israel and possibly nuclear confrontation. There's more to the Bush administration's and the CPA's insistence that all is well with the occupation than just "putting a positive spin" on it. Their plan would allow civil war to ensue, bringing Iran into the conflict, then Israel, followed by Saudi Arabia, then Turkey. Imagining themselves as the victors, the neocons would then be in control of a vast swath of oilfields and buffer zone.
In this related article, Rumsfeld has already called military personnel "fungible." Perhaps this is the reason Perle and the Pentagon insist more troops aren't needed: the 120,000 already there are "fungible," i.e. easily replaced. Loss of this number is probably "acceptable" to the neocons. The fewer troops that get gassed or nuked in this wider conflict, the more that are available for "mopping up" in the aftermath.
And lets take this a step further, I believe the Administration wants another attack against America inside America. That would give them enough reason to declare martial law and suspend the election. Think about it. Why else would the Administration not fund the Department of Homeland Security? Why else would the Administration cut first responders? Why else would Bush himself say defending America is too hard
We are through the looking glass here people. We have to unite and stand behind Kerry. You may think that his policies towards Israel and Iraq are Bush-lite, but I say that is Nader Bull shit. Kerry will not instigate a World War III. Kerry is not a neocon. Kerry won't have neocons in his Administration.
Comments are closed on this story.