----- Original Message ----- From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 7:58 PM Subject: RE: Doing Business With The Enemy
> --- "Miller, Jeffrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Did he? When did he do that? > > > > -j- > > He suggested that "the most interesting theory" about > 9/11 was that President Bush was warned in advance > about it by the Saudis. He claimed not to believe it > - but bringing it up as "the most interesting theory" > clearly attaches some credence to it. Knowing about > 9/11 in advance and not stopping it is high treason in > anyone's book. That's just one among many pretty much > common accusations like that. I don't think the accusations (with a few crazy exceptions, of course) are that Bush knew full well that four planes were set to attack targets like the Pentagon and the WTC and the White House, and only the White House was protected because it all fit in with his scheme. Positing that he was warned about it, there are plenty of other reasons for his not doing anything effective in response. Some are 1) He was warned, but didn't take take the warning seriously enough. 2) He was warned, took steps that he though were adaquate, but he was fooling himself. 3) He was warned, but the warning was too vauge to be effective. 4) He was warned, but he was warned about a lot of different things. Only in hindsight could you point to that one warning. This fits into a broader set of possibilities that I will innumerate: 1) Bush knew about the attack, and let it happen on purpose for nefarious reasons. 2) Bush knew enough so that any reasonable person would have expected him to be able to have stopped the attacks, but he was asleep at the switch. ... ... gradations responsibility that can be assigned in a plus-delta review. ..... ..... 3) There was no way that even the very best people could have forseen the attacks. The first possibility is, indeed, high treason. I will rule it out, and I don't think this is what Dean is talkng about. The theory that Dean is talking about is between #2 and #3, much closer to 2 than 3. 2 is not treason, but incompetence. The worst you can call it is dereliction of duty. Since Bush is trying to keep what happened before as secret as possible, even from people who have the security clearance to look at the material, it raises the possibility that the answer is closer to 2 than 3. My own guess is that its at the level where a Monday morning quarterback could show how Bush should have stopped 9-11, but that a real plus-delta would have considered stopping the attack real time much more difficult than it looks in hindsight. I'm guessing he might want to avoid the political embarassment of having enough to give Monday morning quarterbacks talking points, so he's stonewalling a bit on this. BTW, I recall the attacks on the patriotism of the Democrats well before the Dean comment, in connection with their asking questions about both the certainty of Bush on the WMD, and the clues about 9-11 that Bush had before it occured. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
