Letters to the Editor
RichEmery
Published Letters: 834 Editor's Choice: 191
-
Correction -- Helen Thomas is ALMOST 86...
[Read the article: Quotes of the Day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...sorry to add another year before your real birthday on August 4th, Helen -- I lumped you in with my own mother, who IS already 86. You go, girl -- keep up the GREAT work! 86-year-olds ROCK!
-
Cheney as Edgar Bergen, Bush as Charlie McCarthy/Mortimer Snerd?
[Read the article: Ron Suskind, George W. Bush and the Aug. 6, 2001, PDB]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]From the Washington Post article on this book:
"But that approach constricted the mission of the intelligence and counterterrorism professionals whose point of view dominates this book. Many of them came to believe, Suskind reports, that "their jobs were not to help shape policy, but to affirm it." (Some of them nicknamed Cheney "Edgar," as in Edgar Bergen -- casting the president as the ventriloquist's dummy.)"
I don't claim to be the FIRST to draw a similar parallel here on Salon, or anywhere else, but it really struck me as weird that I'd written the following, back in Feb. 2006, on the topic of the Dubai ports deal:
- - - - - -
"Where to start? "President Bush was unaware..." Tell us something we DIDN'T know already. And how silly is it to call this "...his administration..."? Is there ANYONE who still believes Bush is in control of ANYTHING? If he were in control, would it be possible for such a controversial issue to proceed to final approval without involving or even INFORMING our Dear Leader?
How much more of this must occur before everyone realizes the truth -- that we have a Figurehead in Chief, not a Commander in Chief? Our President is nothing but a ventriloquist's dummy like Charlie McCarthy, except we don't know for sure who "Edgar Bergen" is -- and there's NOTHING comic about this situation."
- - - - - -
Now we know for sure what has been suspected for a LONG time -- Cheney is Edgar Bergen, to GWB's Charlie McCarthy (or Mortimer Snerd!).
Indeed, now that we're finally paying attention, Cheney could more properly be described as the person behind the curtain, pulling all the strings, pushing all the buttons and providing the voice of our "great and powerful" Wizard of Oz. Too bad we won't be able to wake up for another two-and-a-half years, if then. Too bad we can't click our heels and bring our country back home again NOW.
Note, too, that Lou Dobbs of CNN reported earlier this week that Dubai STILL owns the company now managing our ports. Now that the huge ruckus over this ports deal has died away, the public has lost interest and the deal went through as originally planned. We'd better lose our short attention span on such controversies!
-
In response to JustAGuy
[Read the article: Ron Suskind, George W. Bush and the Aug. 6, 2001, PDB]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hey, man -- don't you recall the never-ending talking points that were hammered home ad nauseum by Bush, Condi Rice and essentially everyone else in the administration?
"We would have moved heaven and earth to prevent such an attack if ANYONE thought something like this could happen." "NO ONE could have anticipated hijacking airplanes to be used as weapons."
Oh, really? OH, REALLY??
Seems to me we've found the smoking gun, again and again and again. Anyone who refuses to admit this truth is in MAJOR denial. Bush WAS warned. He chose to act in typical Bush fashion -- ignore the information and belittle its messenger. Now we (and the world) must live with the results, probably into the next generation or two.
-
THIS isn't a clue, JustAGuy???
[Read the article: Ron Suskind, George W. Bush and the Aug. 6, 2001, PDB]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]From the text YOU posted:
"Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."
It seems to THIS reader that a prudent person would say there was a measurable chance that planes would be hijacked for SOME nefarious purpose, even if the "more sensational" possibilities like flying them into buildings could not be confirmed. Come on, man -- the phrasing ITSELF says pairs up hijacking with "other types of attacks" and mentions NY buildings!
What am I missing here? You DON'T see ANY warning there, JustAGuy?
-
Bottom line
[Read the article: Ron Suskind, George W. Bush and the Aug. 6, 2001, PDB]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Building on Melissa's last post, the bottom line clearly is this: Even if the PDB in question wasn't specific on how or when the feared al Qaeda attack inside the U.S. would occur, doing NOTHING is impossible to justify.
Simply dismissing an urgent but non-specific warning, and failing to ACT in ANY way (including convening the cabinet or intelligence resources, and DEMANDING firm info by a certain date) is hard to categorize as anything but dereliction of duty.
I strongly doubt that hard-core Bush defenders and apologists would cut even 10% of the slack to, let's say, ANY Democratic president for such a lapse in judgment. As many others have pointed out, this dwindling band of Bush supporters is in heavy denial. Had Clinton received such a PDB, and had HE done nothing of substance in reaction, is there any doubt this Congress would have "moved heaven and earth" to impeach him? To be fair, he probably would have deserved impeachment and removal from office on THAT basis; likewise, so does Bush, except for the fact that he'd be succeeded by CHENEY -- which leaves us to calculate what the lesser of these two evils might be.
-
Come out, come out, wherever you are, JustAGuy!
[Read the article: Ron Suskind, George W. Bush and the Aug. 6, 2001, PDB]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why so silent, buddy? Nothing to say in response to the latest posts answering your comments? No more lame, misleading defense of Bush, Rice and company? Too bad -- it was fun while it lasted!