Support BuzzFlash Get a copy of click image BuzzFlash Content Interviews P.M. Carpenter Maureen Farrell World Media Watch Barbara's Daily Buzz Eric Harrison Thomas Burns Steven C. Day The Angry Liberal Editorials Contributors Mailbag Perspectives Analysis News Alerts Link Archives Search About FAQ Buy a Book and Support BuzzFlash

The Weekly Standard vs. BuzzFlash.com and Sidney Blumenthal: Part III

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

With this editorial, BuzzFlash concludes its response to the Rupert Murdoch-financed-right-wing-neo-con "The Weekly Standard" claim that BuzzFlash and Sidney Blumenthal "slandered" George W. Bush. (See Part I: [LINK] and Part II: [LINK]). As we previously indicated, about the only way we could "slander" Bush is by accusing him of being honest.

"The Weekly Standard" attacked Blumenthal and BuzzFlash by, once again -- you guessed it -- blaming Bill Clinton for 9/11! We have written three editorials on "The [Whiny] Weekly Standard" attack on us, because it is so emblematic of the failure of the neo-cons and the Bush Administration to take responsibility for ANYTHING! They are the original spoiled brats of government, believing that any errors or setbacks are someone else's fault. As troubled, obsessed creatures, they blame Bill Clinton for all the devastating failures of the Bush administration. When blaming Bill grows even too tiresome for them, they blame Hillary Clinton!

"The neo-conservatives must be running scared -- afraid that the real record of the Bush administration in neglecting the crisis of terrorism before 9/11 will receive widespread circulation," Sidney Blumenthal told BuzzFlash in response to "The Weekly Standard" article predictably entitled, "Clinton Terror Lies." In fact, "The Clinton Wars" is accurate and it's "The Weekly Standard" that is false and distorted. Just as the judge ruled in Fox News v. Al Franken, its argument is 'wholly without merit.'"

In our prior two editorials, we presented just a small portion of the evidence that the Bush administration failed us by not preventing 9/11, even though they had ample warning of the possibility of such an attack.

Interestingly, "The Weekly Standard" quotes Richard Clarke, a Senior White House National Security Council Adviser under Clinton and into the beginning of the Bush administration, in trying to imply Clinton didn't do enough to attack bin Laden after the bombing of the USS Cole in October of 2000, just about four months before Bush took office. "The Weekly Standard" should be careful about who they use as an expert, because Clarke, by and large, thought Clinton did an admirable job in trying to combat terrorism, considering that the Republican Congressional leadership obstructed his efforts every step of the way.

Furthermore, "The Weekly Standard," would be extremely embarrassed (if right wingers were capable of such an emotion) to explain why Bush allowed members of the bin Laden family and other Saudi nationals to flee the U.S. within hours after 9/11, while American airspace was officially closed. Who is the source for this information? Why, none other than Richard Clarke.

Even Bush lapdog Tim Russert took note during the September 7 "Meet the Press" program:

MR. RUSSERT: The cover of Time magazine tomorrow, headlined, The Saudis: Whose Side Are They On in the War on Terror? — in this release from Vanity Fair magazine, "Former White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke tells Vanity Fair that the Bush administration decided to allow a group of Saudis to fly out of the U.S. just after September 11 — at a time when access to U.S. airspace was still restricted and required special government approval. According to other sources at least four flights with about 140 Saudis, including roughly two dozen members of the bin Laden family, flew to Saudi Arabia that week — without even being interviewed or interrogated by the F.B.I."

Why was that allowed? [LINK]

BuzzFlash has regularly run stories and interviews on how the Bush administration has continuously diverted attention from Saudi involvement in the financing, manpower and leadership of al-Qaeda. Indeed, there are indications that some Saudi nationals, not to mention bin Laden himself, were behind the USS Cole bombing.

Indeed, the failure to attack Osama for the USS Cole bombing falls squarely on the shoulders of George W. Bush. "The Weekly Standard" omits Clarke’s comments giving credit to the Clinton administration for fighting the war on terrorism and his criticisms of the Bush administration. It also excludes comments by other national security officials that explain who really was responsible for not dealing with the Cole bombing: the Bush administration. And there are other inconvenient facts omitted.

The fact is that no action could be undertaken until the evidence of al Qaeda’s culpability was collected by US intelligence agencies. President Clinton could not simply order strikes without this material. No one within the national security apparatus, including the CIA, FBI, NSC, and the Pentagon, would have supported such a decision. During the weeks before the election, he would have been accused by Republicans of "wagging the dog," creating a false crisis in order to help Al Gore win the election. In fact, Republicans made that very false charge against him when he ordered missile strikes against al Qaeda after the East Africa embassy bombings in August 1998 and when he ordered Operation Desert Fox, three days of bombings against Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction facilities, in December 1998. And throughout the battle over counting the vote in Florida, President Clinton could order no strikes because he did not have the evidence about al Qaeda’s role in hand.

It was only on January 10, 2001 that the Pentagon issued its first report on the Cole bombing. The Navy issued its report the day before George W. Bush’s inauguration.

During the transition, the Clinton administration briefed the incoming Bush team of the imminent and urgent threat from al Qaeda. But the Bush people brushed this aside, downplaying terrorism as they played up missile defense in space. They ignored the warnings of Richard Clarke, who remained head of counterterrorism at the National Security Council, and took no action against al Qaeda. Clarke’s proposals were shunted off for endless review, but never implemented.

In an August 12, 2002, article, "Time" magazine journalist Michael Elliott notes:

Other senior officials from both the Clinton and Bush administrations, however, say that Clarke had a set of proposals to "roll back" al-Qaeda. In fact, the heading on Slide 14 of the Powerpoint presentation reads, "Response to al Qaeda: Roll back." Clarke's proposals called for the "breakup" of al-Qaeda cells and the arrest of their personnel. The financial support for its terrorist activities would be systematically attacked, its assets frozen, its funding from fake charities stopped. Nations where al-Qaeda was causing trouble—Uzbekistan, the Philippines, Yemen—would be given aid to fight the terrorists. Most important, Clarke wanted to see a dramatic increase in covert action in Afghanistan to "eliminate the sanctuary" where al-Qaeda had its terrorist training camps and bin Laden was being protected by the radical Islamic Taliban regime. The Taliban had come to power in 1996, bringing a sort of order to a nation that had been riven by bloody feuds between ethnic warlords since the Soviets had pulled out. Clarke supported a substantial increase in American support for the Northern Alliance, the last remaining resistance to the Taliban. That way, terrorists graduating from the training camps would have been forced to stay in Afghanistan, fighting (and dying) for the Taliban on the front lines. At the same time, the U.S. military would start planning for air strikes on the camps and for the introduction of special-operations forces into Afghanistan. The plan was estimated to cost "several hundreds of millions of dollars." In the words of a senior Bush Administration official, the proposals amounted to "everything we've done since 9/11."

And that's the point. The proposals Clarke developed in the winter of 2000-01 were not given another hearing by top decision makers until late April, and then spent another four months making their laborious way through the bureaucracy before they were readied for approval by President Bush. It is quite true that nobody predicted Sept. 11—that nobody guessed in advance how and when the attacks would come. But other things are true too. By last summer (2001), many of those in the know—the spooks, the buttoned-down bureaucrats, the law-enforcement professionals in a dozen countries—were almost frantic with worry that a major terrorist attack against American interests was imminent. It wasn't averted because 2001 saw a systematic collapse in the ability of Washington's national-security apparatus to handle the terrorist threat.

The "Time" article also quotes Clinton National Security Adviser as telling Condi Rice in January of 2001: "I'm coming to this briefing to underscore how important I think this subject is. I believe that the Bush Administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al-Qaeda specifically, than any other subject."

The Bush Administration also ignored the warning of the Hart-Rudman Commission on Homeland Security that had been created by President Clinton and submitted its report to George W. Bush.

It was the Bush administration that was presented the evidence about al Qaeda’s role in the attack on the USS Cole, not the Clinton administration. But George W. Bush did absolutely nothing -- absolutely nothing.

In light of the obvious facts, it’s clear that it is "The Weekly Standard" that is engaging in the slander of BuzzFlash and Blumenthal. As Bush would say, it’s a clear case of "historical revisionism." Because, Bush assigned Cheney to handle the terrorism portfolio, but he was too busy planning how to split up the spoils among the energy and oil companies that contribute to the Bush/Cheney cartel.

Then came September 11th.

Then came the fiasco known as Bush's War on Terror. A War on Terror that is marked by incompetence and rampant profiteering, as Bush lies and our soldiers continue to die.

But Bush could care less as long as the Rupert Murdoch properties (including "The Weekly Standard," "New York Post," and FOX News) continue to provide him with phony alibis. With CNN and MSNBC in his corner -- and most of the corporate owned media taking their cues from Karl Rove -- he'll continue to lie, because the media shills are covering for him.

It's too bad our soldiers and the people of Iraq pay the price of his dishonesty -- and reckless bumbling -- with their blood.

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

BACK TO TOP