July 26, 2004
Bush II's Aggressive Removal of Protections a Catalyst for 9/11 Errors
BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
The report of the 9/11 Commission is being read, in a split-the-dif way, as faulting "both" the Bush and the Clinton administrations, as though they were the only administrations pertinent to an inquiry into the attacks of September 11, 2001. Actually, there are three administrations involved: Bush I, Clinton, Bush II.
There is, as they say, plenty of blame to go around. Even taking "national security" and "counterterrorism" on their own terms –- that is, setting aside any broader questions about foreign policy -- all three administrations committed errors. But the errors of the two previous administrations -– Bush I and Clinton -- were largely mistakes of omission, the results of typical bureaucratic infighting or inertia, typical lack of knowledge or lack of resources. In other words, they tended to be normal, humanly understandable mistakes.
The difference with Bush II is that the mistakes went from passive to aggressive. The two previous administrations, following the end of the Cold War, had their lapses and failed to maintain some protections. But the current Bush administration aggressively took down existing protections, partly with a view to benefiting financial interests and partly with a view to launching an attack on Iraq:
Every one of these policy moves, taken singly, had the potential to maximize security failures. You have to wonder why any one of them would have been adopted, much less all of them.
A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
Margie Burns, a native Texan, writes freelance in Cheverly, Maryland. She can be reached at email@example.com.
Articles in the BuzzFlash Contributor section are posted as-is. Given the timeliness of some Contributor articles, BuzzFlash cannot verify or guarantee the accuracy of every word. We strive to correct inaccuracies when they are brought to our attention.