 |
Baldy's Bombast
|
September 12, 2010
Bush kept us safe after 9/11? Maybe, but he sure didn't keep us safe ON 9/11, did he?
Is it really true that "Bush kept us safe after 9/11"? How am I supposed to know? I'm just a Bald Guy in a Booth ®. And since that booth is The Booth of Truth ®, I am morally and contractually bound to speak and write only what I know to be the truth. That is why I am always right.
Anyway, while it may or may not be true that it was Bush who kept us safe after 9/11, it is definitely true that Bush did NOT keep us safe ON 9/11. And if he is to get credit for keeping us safe after 9/11, is it not fair to examine his performance on and before that day?
Here are some Cold, Hard Facts:
Cold, Hard Fact No. 1: According to Condoleeza Rice, the Bush administration was warned on August 6, 2001 that bin Laden was determined to attack inside the United States.
Cold, Hard Fact No. 2: Fighter jets did not respond quickly on 9/11, even though before that day, fighter jets were routinely scrambled quickly for events nowhere near as significant. (See statement of 9/11 widow Mindy Kleinberg to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States; Mrs. Kleinberg cites NORAD's official timeline.)
Cold, Hard Fact No. 3: Bush did not keep us safe on 9/11.
Which of those Cold, Hard Facts is untrue? Here's a hint: NONE of them. Obviously, every one of them is true or I couldn't call them Cold, Hard Facts, could I? That would make me wrong, and, of course, I am always right. But when I respond to "Bush kept us safe after 9/11" with, "Yeah, but he didn't keep us safe ON 9/11," people draw bizarre inferences, such as that I am defending Bill Clinton against accusations that he reduced our defense capabilities, or that I am blaming Bush.
Huh? What does my making the manifestly true statement that Bush did not keep us safe on 9/11 have anything to do with that lying, treasonous war criminal Bill Clinton? Here's the answer: It has nothing to do with that lying, treasonous war criminal Bill Clinton.
I do not blame Bush and never have. How is the conclusion that I blame Bush drawn from an honest consideration of the above Cold, Hard Facts? Here's the answer: That conclusion cannot be drawn from a fair consideration of those Cold Hard Facts, but of course it can be the result of knee-jerk reactions. After all, just because Bush was warned about bin Laden does not mean he could have stopped the attack. And when it comes to getting jets off the ground immediately, well, that has nothing to do with the president.
It seems that those who want to credit Bush for keeping us safe after 9/11 want to live by the credo that what happened in 2001 stays in 2001. I can see why that gives them comfort, but that's the kind of nonsense that gets checked at the door to The Booth of Truth ®.
Bush kept us safe after 9/11? Maybe, but he sure didn't keep us safe ON 9/11, did he?
Is it really true that "Bush kept us safe after 9/11"? How am I supposed to know? I'm just a Bald Guy in a Booth ®. And since that booth is The Booth of Truth ®, I am morally and contractually bound to speak and write only what I know to be the truth. That is why I am always right.
Anyway, while it may or may not be true that it was Bush who kept us safe after 9/11, it is definitely true that Bush did NOT keep us safe ON 9/11. And if he is to get credit for keeping us safe after 9/11, is it not fair to examine his performance on and before that day?
Here are some Cold, Hard Facts:
Cold, Hard Fact No. 1: According to Condoleeza Rice, the Bush administration was warned on August 6, 2001 that bin Laden was determined to attack inside the United States.
Cold, Hard Fact No. 2: Fighter jets did not respond quickly on 9/11, even though before that day, fighter jets were routinely scrambled quickly for events nowhere near as significant. (See statement of 9/11 widow Mindy Kleinberg to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States; Mrs. Kleinberg cites NORAD's official timeline.)
Cold, Hard Fact No. 3: Bush did not keep us safe on 9/11.
Which of those Cold, Hard Facts is untrue? Here's a hint: NONE of them. Obviously, every one of them is true or I couldn't call them Cold, Hard Facts, could I? That would make me wrong, and, of course, I am always right. But when I respond to "Bush kept us safe after 9/11" with, "Yeah, but he didn't keep us safe ON 9/11," people draw bizarre inferences, such as that I am defending Bill Clinton against accusations that he reduced our defense capabilities, or that I am blaming Bush.
Huh? What does my making the manifestly true statement that Bush did not keep us safe on 9/11 have anything to do with that lying, treasonous war criminal Bill Clinton? Here's the answer: It has nothing to do with that lying, treasonous war criminal Bill Clinton.
I do not blame Bush and never have. How is the conclusion that I blame Bush drawn from an honest consideration of the above Cold, Hard Facts? Here's the answer: That conclusion cannot be drawn from a fair consideration of those Cold Hard Facts, but of course it can be the result of knee-jerk reactions. After all, just because Bush was warned about bin Laden does not mean he could have stopped the attack. And when it comes to getting jets off the ground immediately, well, that has nothing to do with the president.
It seems that those who want to credit Bush for keeping us safe after 9/11 want to live by the credo that what happened in 2001 stays in 2001. I can see why that gives them comfort, but that's the kind of nonsense that gets checked at the door to The Booth of Truth ®.
