Subject: Taking responsibility for 9-11


 Bushie is unable to understand why people think he should take any sort of personal responsibility for 9/11.
 Should he?  After all, it was the terrorists who did it!  Let's examine some analogies...

 Let's say that I'm your bodyguard.  You and I are walking through New York City, in a good area, when we are
 suddenly attacked by a larger group of muggers.  I fight back but am overwhelmed, and you are injured and robbed.
 Since you hired me to prevent such an attack, I must take personal responsibility -- even though the muggers carried
 out the attack and I had done everything I could to prevent it.

 Now let's look at a much closer analogy.  I'm still your bodyguard and we still walk through New York.  I tell you
 to take a short cut through a bad part of town, even though it's obvious that two people dressed like we are,
 looking like we do, will be targets.  When a group of muggers attacks, I jump out of the way, hide in a doorway,
 and try to look up what to do in my bodyguard handbook.  In the meantime, the muggers injure and rob you.
 In this case I'm not just responsible, I'm criminally negligent.

 And yet, the Bush administration's actions regarding 9/11 fit the second analogy well.  They knew--as did the
 entire thinking world--that we were in a bad area, having received a lot of "chatter" about al Qaeda threats.
 They increased pressure on the Taliban, threatening them, even though they knew al Qaeda controlled the Taliban.
 When al Qaeda attacked, they did nothing at all to help New York -- no jet fighters to defend the city (or Washington,
 for that matter) -- while Bush read his manual (called Cheney), and ran and hid.

 Personal responsibility for 9/11?  Bush was criminally negligent, and should be prosecuted.
 Hell, even Reagan was more willing to take responsibility.

 Remember when the Marines were attacked in Lebanon,
 and at least Reagan admitted that it happened on his watch?


  return to

Privacy Policy
. .