New NSA docs contradict 9/11 claims

[Old and In the Way]

157. I don't think we completely disagree.

A President can take action - but it may serve corporate interests more than the interests of the people living in the Gulf (as in the BP spill). Presidential inaction and incompetence gave us the Katrina disaster. But 9/11 is an entirely different circumstance. My point here is that, not only did the Bush administration do proactive things to make the terrorist attack easier (taking subs off station in the Gulf, tasked to put a missle up OBL/AQ's tailpipe and shitcan the Hart-Rudman recommendations on terrorism)...but they willfully avoided any cabinet meetings where the subject of terrorism could be discussed. By purposefully making sure that Bush was "out of the loop", no action would be taken....like, suspending the War Game simulations coincidentally planned for 9/11. Or putting airports on a heightened level of awareness. Nothing was done in spite of the warnings that were getting more clear and imminent. A President can't react if he doesn't know...and this President was purposefully kept in the dark about the warnings until the 8/6/01 PDB, which Bush disdainfully told the briefer, "OK, you covered your ass."

Now maybe Bush was the patsy on this - his classroom demeanor on 9/11/01 seems to bear this out. The fact that he did not jump on a full-blown, "all resources to get answers" investigation on 9/12/01 leads me to believe he was certainly culpable for allowing the cover-up to proceed. Gross criminal negligence or an act of treason to allow such an event to happen on US soil. Take your pic...either way, he should be held as a criminal and prosecuted for the 3000 lost lives on that day.