No one seems to be writing opinion pieces quite the way I would, so I decided to do it myself.

The name? Taverns are places where one goes to discuss the interesting events and things in the world, so this is my tavern.

I will offer my views on politics, economics, and whatever else strikes my fancy.
I will occasionally publish the entire article from another journal for purposes of causing discussion.

 

PDB of August 6, 2001

The real issue is stated here in the Christian Science Monitor.

"The question is not whether you had enough specific intelligence to know where or when they would attack," says Jim Walsh, an international security expert at the Kennedy School of Government. "The question is: Did you engage a series of actions that would be sent throughout the system so you could protect yourself?"

Read it here in a .pdf format from Josh Marshall's archive files.

The question the White House wants us to ask is if this was enough to stop 9/11. The question we should ask is if, given this briefing on August 6, 2001, Bush acted correctly by remaining on vacation in Crawford, TX and taking no action.

Richard Clarke clearly thought that Bush and his people did not act adequately based on what they knew. Rice and Bush think they did, but the argument I have been presenting is that this represents their ignorance of how government should and does function rather than being a well-reasoned judgement on their part. Should they keep their jobs because their failure was based on ignorance rather than on bad faith? I really don't think so.

It is true that this PDB did not give enough information to direct a targeted action to prevent 9/11. While that is a fact, it is also irrelevant. The real issue is whether there were actions that Bush could have taken that would have reduced the likelihood of 9/11 occurring. Since we know he took no actions, then his fault is in not trying to stop the attack on 9/11 rather than in not succeeding in stopping it.

Even the actions that they did take were inadequate. Condi Rice andthe White HOuse clearly believe that they placed the government on a higher level of alert. The evidence is clear that the people in the various departments in the field did not receive any indication that a higher level of alert had been declared, and had no idea that there was a greater likelihood of terrorist activity even though Bush himself had been warned that there was. This was true in the FBI, the CIA and the FAA based on statements already made by the Commissioners of the 9/11 Commission.

Another quote from the Christian Science Monitor supports this.

More recently, former Rep. Tim Roemer (D) of Indiana reported that after thousands of interviews, "We have found nobody ... at the FBI who knows anything about a tasking of field offices" to step up investigation of the terrorist threat that summer.

"The FBI does have to answer this question that Rice put on the table so bluntly: Why don't you cooperate with the CIA and why didn't you before 9/11, when we know Al Qaeda had become such a serious threat to the US," says Michael O'Hanlon, a defense analyst at the Brookings Institution.

Critics say that, ultimately, the answer to that question goes all the way to the top of the Bush administration.

This is what represents the failure of both George Bush and Condi Rice in the leadup to 9/11 and what justifies their removal.
posted by Richard at 10:44 PM