UQ Wire: Buzzflash - Why Condi Won't Testify
Sign up for the wire at:
Unanswered Questions : Thinking for ourselves.
Here's Why Condi Rice Won't Testify Under Oath Before the
9/11 Commission: She Can't Handle the Truth. Bush Did
Nothing to Prevent 9/11 Hijackings. The Source of this
Allegation: Condi Rice.
A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL
It's an open and shut case, courtesy of Condi Rice.
BuzzFlash is, frankly, tired of, once again, reminding the Pro-Bush American mainstream press that we need look no further than Condi Rice for proof that Bush failed to try and prevent 9/11, even though he was warned of a possible imminent attack in August of 2001.
What did he do after being warned? Nothing to prevent hijackings, but he did take a month-long vacation in Texas.
Just for the record, let's run this story (which we have featured in numerous BuzzFlash Editorials and Commentaries) one more time.
In 2002, as news of the August 2001 briefing began to emerge, the Bush Cartel hauled out Condi to "explain" that it was true that Bush had been warned that it was highly possible that Al-Qaeda hijackings might occur in the near future, but that Bush wasn't told specifically about plans to attack the World Trade Center or Pentagon so he didn't take action to protect them. The press dutifully accepted this explanation.
But as BuzzFlash pointed out at the time -- and we assume most second graders would understand this, but apparently not the mainstream press -- the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon WERE hijackings.
If Bush had taken steps after his pre-9/11 security briefing to put law enforcement and airport security on heightened alert, he might very well have prevented the hijacking attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. But the American press and the TV pundits couldn't figure out this little bit of basic common sense and convinced the American public that Condi had cleared everything up.
It staggers the mind that they could get away with this transparent, nonsensical, lie. Condi admitted that Bush was warned about potentially imminent hijackings the source of the 9/11 attacks -- and that he did nothing to prevent these hijackings: nothing! That is the bottom line, period. Remember that Condi Rice is the source of this information, not BuzzFlash. ("White House officials acknowledged that U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that bin Laden's terrorist network might try to hijack American planes." [ABC News, 5/16/03].)
Another point that seemed to cast doubt on Condi's claims of Bush innocence in terms of having failed to prevent 9/11 was that she claimed that no one had known that Al-Qaeda was planning to attack buildings with planes. But that was quickly disproved by BuzzFlash and other sites who pointed out that Bush had attended a G-8 conference in Genoa in 2001, where anti-aircraft missiles were deployed for the specific reason that intelligence gathering had revealed Al-Qaeda was planning to attack buildings in the Italian city, targeting the G-8 conferees. That was one reason Bush slept on a boat offshore. And that occurred before the "smoking gun" briefing in the summer of 2001! In addition, there were other previous warnings that Al-Qaeda might attack buildings from the air. [BuzzFlash.com]
As we noted in another editorial, "The lie that Rice told to explain away Bush's pre-9/11 briefing on the threat of deadly hijackings by Al-Qaeda was the political equivalent of robbing a bank in broad day light -- and getting away with it."
So, it's no wonder that Condi doesn't want to go under oath before the 9/11 Commission. Because you really don't need a 9/11 Commission to tell us that Bush failed to protect us against 9/11. Condi has already proven that, in her own words.
A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL
First, some wisdom from a BuzzFlash reader:
"Isn't it obvious to everyone that Bush and Company are choosing their words very carefully. Watch his expression after Bush says, "If our administration had intelligence that terrorists were going to hijack an airliner on September 11 and fly it into the World Trade Center we would have acted on it."
What he said is probably true, they did not tell him the exact plan and date, but he is clearly avoiding the probable fact that he was informed of some sort of threat.
Rumsfeld did it too. He never told us what he did know -- same with Bush."
Powell, obviously reading from the White House message point of the day, uttered the same disclaimer, without disallowing that the Bush administration had been informed, in August of 2001, that Al-Qaeda planned to hijack planes -- and that they had prior information of Al-Qaeda plans to attack U.S. buildings.
This is the standard Bush Cartel method of misleading the American public and denying the truth, without technically lying. They are claiming such a narrow specific warning didn't happen, without admitting to the fact that they were warned against imminent Al-Qaeda hijackings and terrorist attacks in general -- and did nothing in response to these warnings.
In addition another reader notes this:
George Bush himself admitted to Bob Woodward that he wasn't that interested in bin Laden or al Qaeda prior to 9-11....
From Woodward's book, "Bush at War," page 39:
"Until September 11, however, Bush had not put that thinking [that Clinton's response to al Qaeda emboldened bin Laden] into practice, nor had he pressed the issue of bin Laden. Though Rice and others were developing a plan to eliminate al Qaeda, no formal recommendations had ever been presented to the president.
"I know there was a plan in the works. . . . I don't know how mature the plan was," Bush recalled. . . .He acknowledged that bin Laden was not his focus or that of his national security team. There was a significant difference in my attitude after September 11. I was not on point [before that date], but I knew he was a menace, and I knew he was a problem."
Again, why do we need a 9/11 Commission? It's not just Condi Rice who has made the case that Bush was asleep at the wheel in Crawford when he should have been protecting us from 9/11, Bush makes the case himself!
STANDARD DISCLAIMER FROM UQ.ORG: UnansweredQuestions.org does not necessarily endorse the views expressed in the above article. We present this in the interests of research -for the relevant information we believe it contains. We hope that the reader finds in it inspiration to work with us further, in helping to build bridges between our various investigative communities, towards a greater, common understanding of the unanswered questions which now lie before us.